the face

Fridlund (pg 109) says that "Signals do not evolve to provide information detrimental to the signaler. Displayers must not signal automatically but only when it is benficial to do so." Do you agree? How does this fit with the defniition of signaling we have been using thus far? How does this fit with involuntary expressions of inner state (such as blushing or crying)?

as interpreted as social signals, face expressions are seen as given off by the sender as intentional signifiers of particular qualities. for a signal to be reliable over time, there must be measurable benefits to truthful signalling and costs to untruthful signalling. deception should be costly and difficult to pull off. however, involuntary physiological measures such as muscle contractions or genetic formations that are intrinsically correlated with an expressive quality aren't signals due to their direct connection; they become more like cues or direct reactions. if the orbicularis oculi muscle contracts upon observation, and that muscle is proven to be a direct response of genuine happiness and nothing else, then an observed contraction of this muscle unequivocally indicates happiness. fridlund's statement asserts that facial expressions are changable and controllable in some way (consciously or subconsciously?), if they are formed or timed in ways that most benefit the sender with respect to the signal's reception to the receiver. in this view, expressions are never automatic or inevitable, since a 'true' emotion which would escape might be revealed at the cost of the sender. fridlund implies that costly signals of the face would never 'slip out' automatically or be revealed beyond the person's control, therefore ruining the signal's beneficial utility.

i tried to think of 'involuntary' expressions such as blushing, crying, laughing, and showing fear, and wondering to myself if these sorts of actions occur when alone, or with no particular intended audience, or if people have ability to stifle such expressions when necessary. maybe i'm strange, but there are occasions in which i've smiled or laughed out loud when reading a good book alone, which would question the signalling significance of that action. however, as argued by fridlund, i might be imagining that i'm around a friend who might enjoy the same passage, or simply be reassuring my own self, as another entity, of humor digestion. i would imagine blushing rarely occurs in solitude, since it most often embodies a shy or self-conscious reaction to speaking among or being in the view of others (unless the blush is a symptom of something emotion-neutral, such as rosacea or psychological disorders). i believe that it's been proven that people tend to laugh more around others, hence the canned laughter that populates sitcom television. as far as showing fear, there's always a stimulus (watching a gory movie, darting in front of an oncoming car, an embedded insecurity), which might serve as the 'receiver' to any signal emission. ticklishness is strange in that it incites people to laugh, no matter what emotion they may have been feeling at that moment, but perhaps a good, biologically-driven laugh primes the body and the mind to being open to happiness.

are these involuntary actions truly uncontrollable in circumstances where it would be costly to express? from personal experience, i've burst into tears during a particularly harsh music lesson, while waiting for someone that never showed up, and conducting formal tete-a-tetes. i've also had unfortunately social blunders in which i couldn't contain a swell of giggles that erupted in the middle of a sober, formal speech ceremony, in which i had the physically exit the room before i caused any serious damage (similar to elaine in seinfeld's 'pez dispenser' episode couldn't control her spontaneous laughter in a ongoing stage piano recital). i'm sure with much breathing and psychological inner voicing and lots of public speaking practice one could attempt to minimize blushing, but the signal still feels inherent (you may mimic smiles when happy because others tend to do so, but no one teaches you how or when to blush).

so, as to agreeing with fridlund that facial expressions are inherently controllable and revealed only at beneficial circumstances, or to disagreeing that some facial expressions are involuntarily exposed despite their cost to the sender, i'd lean toward the fridland argument. however, it's difficult (for me, at least) to ascertain whether or not revealing a facial expression is costly or beneficial. blushing may be embarassing, but it may be a beneficial signal that says, 'please forgive me, speaking to people engenders some difficulty on my part' which informs the audience of the circumstance. crying may be costly in that it shows weakness or frailty, but its benefit might be to coax sympathy or merciful surrender. laughing in the middle of a solemn ceremony might be inappropriate but merely infusing some liveliness into an artificial realm of sobriety. i don't know if there are expressions that are proven to be truly involuntary and more costly than they are beneficial. are there? if not, then this evidence further strengthens fridlund's stance on facial signalling evolution.

Ekman proposes that "all facial expressions of emotion are involuntary". Is there any way of reconciling this view with Fridlund's? Do they each use the worlds "emotion" and "expression" in the same way? In Ekman's view, are facial expressions signals? Are they in Fridlund's? Are they reliable signals?

if we view ekman's facial expressions of emotion as expressions that seem to portray a well-established sign of such emotion, these expressions must be impossible to replicate exactly without the genuine emotion behind it (such as duchenne smiles, which are impossible without actual happiness present), and that one does not have command over the revealing of one's true emotions. ekman calls this a 'leakage of felt emotion,' where micro expressions give away the appearance the inside feelings.

fridlund defines facial expressions as signals, primarily used for the benefit of the signaller in context of the situation and the audience. the expressions aren't present unless they provide some sort of net benefit; otherwise, there is no motiviation to display the expressions. as far as 'emotion' and 'expression' are defined, ekman sees emotion as an 'authentic self' or human feeling (from happiness to anger to enjoyment to disgust) and expression as 'micro expressions' and body language, where fridlund notes expressions as relatively independent to emotions and instead views them as 'negotiation tools of social encounters.' they disagree on the fundamental link between expression and emotion: ekman draws strong correlation, whereas fridlund draws no such conclusion. however, both concur that interpretation of expressions is highly dependent on the context, and cannot be judged in a social vacuum.

in terms of signalling, ekman links emotional leakage to micro expressions and body language, yet interprets broadly-observed faces as filtered through a socially conventional self. most everyday interactions would deal with the filtered self, with trained experts more privy to the signs of inner emotion that would reveal itself through imperceptible tics, movements, and behaviors. the filtered face expressions signal what the user intends for the audience to see while reaping benefit, yet the glimpses of truth through the micro expressions would be indicators (but not signals, since the actions would be involuntary) of real emotion. this runs completely counter to fridland's thesis, in which all facial expressions are social signals and absolutely nothing becomes accidentally 'leaked'. if a costly truthful emotion were leaked without the person's control, there remains no reason why a costly signal would have persisted through evolution.

are facial expressions reliable? in ekman's case, it depends on how educated the audience is in reading facial and bodily movements. if you have a completely normal, unspecialized audience, the facial expressions may not be entirely reliable, since the public face becomes filtered through a sophisticated social convention layer. however, if the audience knows how to read the involuntary acts, they might be able to read the hidden emotions which are leaked to the surface without the knowledge or control of the communicating person. since these micro expressions would be intrinsically tied to a particular emotion, these signals (or cues) would be highly reliable indicators of emotion. they'd only work while present; the absence of the signals wouldn't necessarily imply the absence of a particular emotion. for involuntary actions, an example of a crying person would imply they were passionate, sad, or moved.

viewing it through fridlund's theory, facial expressions would be inconsistent in its reliability, since all visible forms of facial expressions wouldn't be related to emotion in any direct, unmediated way. expressions serve as signals for behavioral and social benefits, not as emotional displays. as far as reliably describing a person's innate emotional state, drawing straight conclusions on personal qualities would be shaky; however, the facial expressions would be a reliable signal as to reading qualities of a person's intention in manipulating a social relationship or environment. if a person cries, it is a reliable signal of their desiring of a reactionary behavior, including increased attention, pity, sympathy, or physical contact.

What does Zebrowitz mean by "overgeneralization effects"? What is an example of a physically based overgeneralization, a culturally based one and a personal one? Can you re-frame her discussion about different cues (signals) of traits (qualities) that are seen in faces in terms of signaling - are these signals assessment signals? What are their costs? Go to a public place and observe 4 different people you do not know. Write down what your impression is of each of them. How much is your impression drawn from their face, their clothing, their actions, etc? Concentrating on the face, what sense of the person do you derive from it? Can you articulate why? Do you think any of the "overgeneralization" processes that Zebrowitz describes played a role in your interpretation? What about other categorzation processes?

an overgeneralization effect can be succinctly described as labeling, quick categorization, or bias. with one glimpse, one must observe a host of various inputs and then judge the person based on these instantaneous signals. hence, the impact of the first impression. there are many examples of physically-based ones, including symmetry of the face (asymmetry may be overgeneralized as infirm body or mental health), frown or smile lines (which are permanent artifacts of repeated frowning or smiling over time, which generalizes to a pessimist versus optimist), or animal associations (someone who has close-set eyes might be seen as cunning and foxlike, or someone who has a turned-up nose might be seen as greedy and piggish). a culturally-based overgeneralization example might be a woman's cosmetics that look quite outdated and old-fashionedly applied; she could be seen as unfashionable or dowdy. a man who appears to smile too much, including during more sober moments, may be seen as smirkish or oblivious. a personal overgeneralization may happen if you judge someone as one way or another because of previous experiences with a similar looking or acting person ('ugh, that guy looks just like my ex'). this is the 'case of the mistaken identity' phenomenon. everyone's individual circumstances and history frame a significant amount of face-reading (such as we discovered earlier when reading and interpreting signals in the real world.)

some of the physically-based overgeneralization signals could arguably be assessment ones, such as wrinkles that record the memory of many repeated facial expressions, and physical symptoms of actual disorders (such as down's syndrome or hepatitis). using the linkage path of 'biology directly causes physical feature', features share hormonal or genetic sources. this may be reliable, but the cost is that the nurture/environmental component of the person is still not yet ably revealed. someone may have been born a certain color or shape, but that is beyond the control of the actual person (though may throw light on their parents or family). the assessment becomes weaker with 'physical and social environment causes physical feature' and even more so with 'psychological traits cause physical feature' (where there's even a common mimicry or deceptive channel running in parallel). someone may look upset from their eyebrows, but they might just be reacting to an itchy or painful thought. someone may look tan and healthy, but they remained indoors and just went to the tanning salon. the costs for the signaller become lower and lower the easier they are replicated with common sense or common technology (plastic surgery, cosmetics, conscientiously smiling more), and therefore the cost to verify such signals increases with more probing for the truth.

[i'm going to write about this after getting coffee tomorrow at 1369. will blog post-haste.]

Faces are used to recognize people, to assess their character and gauge their emotional state. In a mediated environment, we may be able to design interfaces so that none, some or all of these functions are possible. What are the costs and benefits of each of these functions, to bo the signaler (the face) and the receiver (the viewer). How might you design a face that that purported to show character and emotion, but not identity? Can you show identity without the markers of character? When do you think seeing someone's face is important in a mediated environment? Why? In what form? What about videophones - do you think they will eventually replace or supplement the audio-only phone or is there a deeper reason why they have never been successful?

recognition:
for the signaler, the revealing of real-life identity online (being 'named') has the cost of maintaining a constant, consistant persona. there's no capability for escapism, the freedom that comes from reinventing yourself online to strangers and friends alike. being recognizable also carries over negative traits that one might be identified with in the real world (e.g. people might recognize you as the weird, unattractive barista at the corner cafe), and whatever you do online can suffer consequences when returning to the real world. there exists no separation between an online and offline identity. however, the benefits include having one's real-life positive traits carry through ("trust me, you can clearly identify me as a loyal friend") , and showing one's true self creates consistency through all interactions, off- and on- line, which might be handy now that there's so much overlap between face-to-face and electronically mediated communication with those that are in close proximity to us.

for the viewer's cost, one cannot fantasize about sender's identity, especially if it's someone quite familiar. if the sender is particularly known as someone negative ('they're so disrespectful'), the viewer who sees him online will suffer similar negative reactions and resist or curtail interaction.
the viewer benefits much more, as they can have more security in interaction (the delivery of content from the viewer can be tailored specifically and accurately for the listener), and one can rely on a consistent identity + relationship since every action online or in reality can be sourced accordingly.

assessment of character:
i'm assuming this assessment is something like a placard profile that lists some adjectives and personality traits and tendencies that have been established and defined with a user's history. if a signaler has a negative reputation, the costs to him is that he cannot begin again with a clean slate, and cannot easily shake off the established character label. also, even if the assessment were true ('party-loving', 'nurturing') and not necessary negative, the traits wouldn't be desirable to be shown to certain other parties, such as casual vs formal or family vs work crossover. however, the benefits to the signaler include a more clearly defined expression, since context of personality provides a basis on delivery of communication. words coming from a shy, reticent person might mean something completely different from the same words coming from a politically-active extremist. nuance can thrive, with knowledge that more information about the sender is available.

as for the viewer, costs include general preconception + prejudice of the sender. too much information can unfairly bias the interaction in an over- or under- stated way. a label can be helpful as a hint, but there are so many slanted connotations for every personality trait that nothing can be interpreted at merely face value. however, with this additional knowledge, a viewer can strategize encounter, by customizing one's delivery through the filter of audience and relationship status, and thus the context helps tailor the interaction for efficiency and acceptance.

gauge emotional state:
if the signaler is able to express somehow his emotional state, this may be costly if detrimental or unwanted things leak through. such as the involuntary micro expressions might give away inner emotions a la ekman, the displayed emotional state might not be the intended signal, or may be misleading. the emotional state should be clearly displayed to all parties, or else an unexpected reaction might ensue from a misaligned concordance. the benefits to the signaler are a truer representation, and therefore the communication can be read through the context of expression. someone writing in short, terse words make sense from someone who is stressed and anxious, whereas they might seem impersonal or aloof when read through a neutral standpoint.

the viewer with the knowledge of emotional state may err on over- or under-reacting to a display. if the gauge reads 'a little fearful' then that might mean anything from dreading a next-day exam to a spider dangling from the ceiling at that moment to worrying about secret-spilling. it might be too much information; in the real world, even physical faces do not necessarily correllate to a specific emotion. we dont even have an emotional state gauge offline! also, there's the possibility that the emotional gauge is incorrect, in which the whole interaction can be thrown off. the whole dialogue hinges on complex, subtle exchanges of courtesy and emotion. there's a give and take. however, the benefit of knowing emotion is, of course, additional context, and can be used as a behavioral predictor for further words or action.

as for displays that would reveal character + emotion, but not reveal recognizable identity, i thought of a webcam-like application that would use a heavily high-contrast monochrome filter, so that everyone's face would be colorless and comicbook-like. since real facial expressions serve as the input, the displayed expressions would correspond accordingly. the distortion would mask identity while liberating nuanced faces. another idea is just to have straight-up video of one facial feature, such as the eyes or the mouth, instead of the entire face at once. you can read a lot through small movements in such features. you might need to translate to monochrome, but recognition would be challenging without key pieces of tie-in information.

as for showing identity without markers of character, i'm a little confused, though a clearly displayed truthful static photograph could at once reveal identity without the extra information of an animated face.

seeing a face, replete with expression and life and nuance, can be important when dealing with highly selective + specific interactions online, such as business transactions, talking to a close member of the family, or if you choose to shield away from certain kinds of people. you would want a recognizable face if identity is crucial ('this person and this person only should hear it this way'), and an emotional face if it's an introductory sort of interaction and each party wants to size up the other quickly and accurately. i'm thinking that it might be useful in ebay or other sorts of quasi-anonymous communities to remind everyone that there actual people on the other end of a username. this might allow for more humane, realistic expectations.

spew on videophones:
have to be stationery in front of machine -- portability?
have to 'look' presentable, not make any errant faces or dress
need to show continual attention, but to a machine
cannot viably multitask
skipping video is annoying
have to maintain gaze
cant glance at their shoes or background, no distractors