Talk:Microexpression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Eye-rolling
What does it mean when someone rolls their eyes?
- check out Gestures entry [[1]]
[edit] Botox Section??
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)
[edit] "microsecond to microsecond"??
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)
[edit] The Diogenes Project?
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)
