Talk:Microexpression

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Amygdala

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 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

scientific evidence needed

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rlbritt79. Peer reviewers: Eccrowe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of microexpression theory

Brazilian scientist Gabriela Bailas made a video in 2021 about microexpressions. The following references, which were cited in the video, may be used in this Wikipedia article:

Barrett, Lisa Feldman; Adolphs, Ralph; Marsella, Stacy; Martinez, Aleix M.; Pollak, Seth D. (July 2019). "Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 20 (1): 1–68. doi:10.1177/1529100619832930. ISSN 1529-1006. PMC 6640856. PMID 31313636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

Burgoon, Judee K. (2018-09-20). "Microexpressions Are Not the Best Way to Catch a Liar". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 1672. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01672. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6158306. PMID 30294288.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Jordan, Sarah; Brimbal, Laure; Wallace, D. Brian; Kassin, Saul M.; Hartwig, Maria; Street, Chris N.H. (October 2019). "A test of the micro‐expressions training tool: Does it improve lie detection?". Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 16 (3): 222–235. doi:10.1002/jip.1532. ISSN 1544-4759.

I believe this might become a controversial topic, so I link WP:BALANCE . Mateussf (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo Science

So, where's the data? It is astounding that such nonsense is taken seriously. What are the Type I and II error rates? I have zero doubt that people have a broad range of responses to the same stimuli. The idea that one size fits all is true in this case, while it's almost never true in real life, is so exceptional it requires substantial evidence. Where's the evidence? The Controversy section starts out with an incoherent claim about its "conceptual formation". This is meaningless gobble-de-gook. Is it predictive? Saying it is or isn't requires DATA, not opinions. It's unreasonable to expect that every single human on Earth will have the same microexpressions given the "same" stimulus. (One obvious reason is that the same objective process or condition is NOT the "same stimulus" for different people with different experiences, physical states, etc.) But it *is* reasonable to quantify the ability of this hocus-pocus to predict average reaction(s) at the population level. Where is it?71.31.145.237 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]