Talk:Microexpression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


WTF[edit]

is this article for real? delete (or move to uncyclopedia)! "Well known leaders of the free world are tested using Microexpressions when elected." any source for that? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.63.138 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Microexpressions will be red hot as we get to the next plateau of understanding human interaction. There was a WIRED article from 2003 - http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/09/60232 and from Science Daily in 2006. Granted, not as prestigious as the SIGGRAPH Proceedings, but not total psycho-babble. Neologism? When was the word neurophysiology coined? I just read about them in the book - Neuroscience of Human Relationships - I can't find the reference right now... Microexpressions will be well documented hard science in the near future. Wikipedia can be a little patient with the public misgivings and stay on the right side of science or a bunch of loopy luddites. Don't you need to impeach Paul Ekman before deleting? BTW, the above offending line is no loner there.

Microexpressions may be an up and coming area of scientific inquiry, but at the time this really seems more like the pet project of one person, or perhaps a few people. I imagine there must be studies that refute the idea of microexpressions, seems there should be a section on criticism or controversy regarding the subject.Mad05963 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, where is the criticism? Seems like this subject is mostly supposition; while there may be similarities amongst cultures, 'universality' of expression is a long way from proved. Impeaching Ekman may not be needed, but according to his Wiki-entry, take note he was funded by an on-going gov't grant for most of his career, as many of these 'ivory tower' academics are. 66.81.252.120 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Searching Google-Scholar on 'microexpressions' yields 836 hits as of Oct 2010.IGrokYou (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eye-rolling[edit]

What does it mean when someone rolls their eyes?

check out Gestures entry [[1]]

Truth Wizards[edit]

This line "Science calls these people 'Truth Wizards'" seems... well, unscientific. Science doesn't call anyone anything. Scientists do however, this line should actually stste who coined the term.Mad05963 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing this line because it obviously seems incorrect to say 'science calls them...'. Moreover, no citations given. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Botox Section??[edit]

The Botox information is interesting, but fills the majority of the entry, which is not about Botox. It could use more integration/justification and balance by other information. WHY does it matter that botox can do this? Is it used to hide lies, or has it been used in research into microexpressions? The only connection I've found in searches are silly comments in threads discussing the research and a question/answer pair in an interview with the researcher. I'll try to clear this up when I can.Bigdoglover

It is also a vast oversimplification of the neurology to the point of being misleading. Different neural pathways are not linked to different motor nerves but will lead (in some way we don't understand) to different patterns of motor nerve excitation. The black box of how different neural pathways might lead to different motor patterns is a huge gap in our understanding, as is the understanding of what, exactly, different neural pathways are. What is probably going on in Botox is that both the microexpressions resulting from "truth-telling" and the microexpressions resulting from "fiction-telling" are distorted ("blurred" in effect) due to the lack of sufficient activation of certain muscles, thus inhibiting the ability of another person to accurately decipher them. In either case, our knowledge on this subject is conjectural at best. I would recommend removing the Botox section altogether, as it is both misleading and unnecessary. dwinetsk
Thanks for the info dwinetsk, I have used it to clarify the language in this section. Could you provide the sources for your info and add them to the article? Dr.Crawboney 11:54, 31 Octover 2006 (UTC)
There is a Discover magazine article about how Botox does reduce anger (as it paralyzes the face). So... --Heero Kirashami (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"microsecond to microsecond"??[edit]

The statement "American psychologist John Gottman began video-recording living relationships, microsecond to microsecond, to study how couples interact." can't possibly be correct.

A microsecond is a millionth of a second. Video is typically 24 (or is it 30?) frames per second, or if you prefer, on the order of 30,000 - 40,000 microseconds per frame. Even if one could actually capture a million frames per second, it is highly unlikely that this would be useful. More likely, the image would not change at all for thousands of frames (milliseconds) at a time. Poring through a million frames in order to parse a second of interaction also seems incredibly time-consuming.

Anyway, it's pretty clear this is just a typo. The relevant question is, what time scale was Gottman actually using? -Dmh 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the time scale really matter? It's most likely somewhere between 1/20th to 1/30th of a second (nowhere near a microsecond), but is that really relevant? I'm going to delete the part about microseconds. Snottywong 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation for the 1/25th of a second statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8nYZg4VnI#t=36m00s Source is an interview with Dr Ekmen, The creator of the Facial Action Coding System94.168.208.190 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dr. Ekman says that it's 1/15th to 1/25th a second that a Microexpression can occur. Here is the citation to prove what he says: http://face.paulekman.com/aboutmett2.aspx froggy26rk (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out (here on the Talk page) that analysis of microanalysis of film was in place by the mid-teens by the Gilbreth's with inconsistent frame rae (circa 16fps). By the 30's Arnold Gesell was working at 24 fps and folks like the Palo Alto group through the 60s were at that frame rate. Video is 30 frames a second and microanalysis of microexpressions is stuck with that granularity. When audio is analyzed or a SMPTE code was used with video, much finer temporal decisions could be made, however, given that the microexpressions are encoded in the image data, it is difficult to talk about doing timing that's very good given standard recording equipment. It is relevant, then, to note that the expressions under discussion can be ridiculously brief and the sensors used to capture them need to be better than standard fare. Sadly, that's typically not the case.

The Diogenes Project?[edit]

I'm pretty sure the link to "the Diogenes Project" isn't the intended link -- the Diogenes to which it is linked is Diogenes of Sinope, which while a fascinating article, seems to have little to do with microexpressions. Sadly I think that either the link has to be removed, or some more research has to be done and a Diogenes Project stub created.--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey i'm new to this thing, but i added some square brackets, because i want to study microexpressions, and at some point whatever i write should be linked to you. So yeah, if i've done something wrong. Je m'excuse :p But, i'm still learning the inn's and outs of this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToasterCoster (talkcontribs) 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I believe the External links have grown a little out of control. Please see Wikipedia:External links and trim anything that doesn't belong. –xenotalk 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

External links

People who daydream while you talk[edit]

What if the person you're talking to is daydreaming? Wouldn't the microexpressions you see be mis-attributed to what you're talking about? Jigen III (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that if you were daydreaming the fact that your attention is elsewhere would also be detectable - But I have no sources Basiclife (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken referance link[edit]

Number 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodeken (talkcontribs) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

MERA non profit organisation[edit]

I'd like to include a piece of information about Micro Expressions Research Association to the article : MERA (undone article history) (Note the MERA section) howether it gets moderated. I've read and learned a lot about micro expressions, and the association I added seems adding value to the article on wikipedia, because it has links to more articles and relevant resources, what is useful for the readers. It's a non-profit organisation and it's not spam, so I don't understand why you removed it. I beleive what I found there does contribute to more information about research and micro expressions. Can you redo the changes or let me know how it's more approriate to contribute with this resource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microexpress (talkcontribs)

The text you tried to include says nothing about the subject of this article and is therefore highly off-topic here. The text merely says something about a certain organisation with, by the way, a website that is not even accessible without registration. - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lie detection[edit]

Is there any scientific (peer-reviewed) research on its rising use in lie detection? (As in this perhaps?) Trigaranus (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How many microexpressions are there?[edit]

How many microexpressions are there in a human face according to latest research?--95.90.180.237 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microexpression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microexpression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Amygdala[edit]

Would it be possible to leave the amygdala out of this?

People love to point to the amygdala when they talk about the brain and emotions but, truth be known, there's much more of the brain involved than the amygdala. You could look to the cingulate gyrus, the septum, the hippocampus; you could talk about the limbic system or Papez circuit. The Amygdala is the Marsha Brady of the emotional brain. It gets all the attention. Amygdala, Amygdala, Amygdala. I'm trying to be light-hearted about this and hope it doesn't come off as offensive. I don't mean it to be. I mostly wanted to note that while the amygdala performs an important role, it is part of an ensemble cast and that while removing it would have a deleterious effect on microexpressions, so would removing any number of other related structures. Important recent work on the neuroscience of emotion by Lisa Barrett is a real game changer and does not give this solo role to the amygdala. That said, the game even before this game changer didn't privilege the amygdala like this article.

I wonder if the person who wrote that section might want to defend their choice. I won't go in and change it as I'm knowledgeable but not an expert. Perhaps someone knows of expert opinion that would support the claims. I don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBeckwith (talkcontribs) 00:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but the parenthetical identification of the amygdala as "the emotional center of the brain" reads like a lie-to-children on the order of magnitude of "the mitochondria is (sic) the powerhouse of the cell." It's also tangential enough that deleting it would not hurt the paragraph even if the paragraph's exclusive identification of the amygdala as the source of microexpressions is 100% accurate. 35.40.127.104 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

History of Microexpressions[edit]

The history section references "discovery" by 20th century studies of the subject. I personally witnessed and heard discussion of micro expressions used in ancient Khmer political art at Angkor Wat and in Khmer dance in modern day Cambodia. It was explained to me by a local guide long before the referenced discovery that micro-expressions were used in Khmer sculpture and dance by the ruling elite to communicate the desires of rulers and to control behavior of the masses. I suggest that there needs to be some more research about the history of "discovery" rather than strictly crediting such recent study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4980:1FBD:A98C:D612:BCA8:BAD2 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

scientific evidence needed[edit]

what are the scientific evidences proving microexpression, FACS, MFETT, SFETT, etc? needed section.--Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)