Imitation vs Acting

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.07.1145)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.07 14:30 EDT)–
All that is claimed is that for a handful of emotional states (happiness,
sadness, surprise, fear, anger, and disgust) there is a corresponding facial
expression, and that the correspondence is universally recognized and therefore
probably innate.

I agree that that is very likely (and very interesting), I just don’t think
it has anything to do with imitation. I think it’s more related to acting.
I can control control my kinesthetic facial expression so as to give the
impression to someone else that I am experiencing the emotion of happiness,
sadness, surprise, etc. This is what actors do. They are not trying to
imitate other people, necessarily. They are trying to do something more
like communication. They are trying to give the impression (using control
of kinesthetic facial perceptions) that they are experiencing particular
emotions. It’s very interesting that this kind of communication (using
facial expression) is possible. But, again, it’s not really imitation.
Acting can involve imitation. I think that’s called mimicry. But the
acting that involves communication via control of facial (and bodily) expression
does not necessarily involve imitation.

The way you do surprise or disgust may differ in
detail from one occasion to another or from the way someone else does it,
but it is recognized reliably by anyone as an expression of surprise or
disgust.
Agreed.
“Oh damn! OK, I really have fixed the camera
this time. On three, everybody smile! One, two …”. You smile. Is it because
you control your emotion of happiness and a smile is the side effect? Or
is it because you can control the kinesthetic feeling of what you know
appears to others as a smile?
The latter, of course. and when you do that, I would say that you are acting,
not imitating.
It is easy to block one’s view of whatever limbs
are doing the gesturing without blocking one’s view of the gestures to
be imitated. The connection of facial expressions to affect simply invites
confusion and controversy. However, if that’s what you want, go for it.
Gestures are connected with affect as well. We communicate emotions with
our whole body. Darwin’s cachet has probably made facial expression
seem uniquely important as a communicator of emotion. So maybe that does
give facial expression extra baggage as a realm for studying imitation.
But facial expression is so handy and portable I hate to give it up.
But it’s not something I can spend much time on anyway, as far as doing
real research goes. I think it’s far more important for me to learn how
the economy works before worrying about whether or not babies imitate smiles.
So if you want to study imitation, go for it using something other than
imitating facial expressions.
Best regards

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Senior Behavioral Scientist

The RAND Corporation

PO Box 2138

1700 Main Street

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971

Fax: 310-451-7018

E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

2

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.07 16:19 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.07.1145)–

All that is claimed is that for a handful of
emotional states (happiness, sadness, surprise, fear, anger, and disgust)
there is a corresponding facial expression, and that the correspondence
is universally recognized and therefore probably innate.
I
agree that that is very likely (and very interesting), I just don’t think
it has anything to do with imitation.

Once again, I agree. And once again this complicates the use of facial
expression as examples of imitation, so it’s probably the wiser course to
look at something that is more neutral.

I think it’s more related to acting. I can
control control my kinesthetic facial expression so as to give the
impression to someone else that I am experiencing the emotion of
happiness, sadness, surprise, etc. This is what actors do. They are not
trying to imitate other people, necessarily. They are trying to do
something more like communication. They are trying to give the impression
(using control of kinesthetic facial perceptions) that they are
experiencing particular emotions.

An actor “assumes the position” of the emotional state. On
“assuming the position” you find yourself entering the
emotional state which, if it was experienced for some other reason, would
lead a person to assume that position. This reversal of what is usually
assumed to be the causal relation seems to be what Tomkins and those who
learned from his work mean by “feedback”. See
http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_05_a_face.htm
toward the end of Section 5. Other body language then flows naturally from the emotional state. Method acting also uses remembered experiences to achieve an emotional state. Arthur Miller told of a great actor in Yiddish theater in the '30s. In one play in particular, people came in great crowds, from all over, even if they did not understand Yiddish, to see him in one particular scene in which he has decided to shoot himself, to commit suicide. For five minutes he stands alone on the stage with the gun, struggling to make himself do it, and finally “I can’t!” (in Yiddish, of course). People asked him how he did it, how he created such intensity of conflict that audiences identified with so completely, he invariably got standing ovations, people would come to see that scene and then leave. He refused to reveal his secret. “It would spoil it for you.” Many years later, he did say. When he was working on the script he wondered, what experience can I possibly bring to this, to bring this off? All his life, he had a powerful aversion to cold water. So he imagined that he had to step into a cold shower. For you, likely, or for me, this would be unpleasant, we wouldn’t like it, but we could do it. For him, this aversion was so strong that it was like putting a gun to his head. So for him, this worked.

So this is a way of controlling and even imitating an emotional state. It is not a skill that all people know, but it depends upon a linkage of emotion with body configuration that appears to be innate and universal.

Gestures are connected with affect as well. We communicate emotions with our whole body. Darwin’s cachet has probably made facial expression seem uniquely important as a communicator of emotion.

No, the brain structures involved with control of and recognition of facial expressions appear to be more numerous and more complex than those for other body language, with hand gestures second. See references cited.
I knew you weren’t interested in modeling imitation, but I wanted to clarify the issues for when it is taken up.
The question, before that long digression, was what is going on in imitation. In the ordinary case, imitating someone’s manner of controlling a variable, we control the CV and at the same time we control the behavioral outputs that are the means of controlling the CV. It is also possible to mirror someone’s actions with no other CV being controlled, but that is limited I think to artificial situations like games.
This is relevant to my interest in language and culture because cultural differences, dialects, and the like, are differences in the manner in which individuals control a given CV. We all drink liquids, we all communicate negation, but the manner in which you normally do so (and which you perceive as normal in others) is a means of controlling what kind of person you are perceived to be.

    /Bruce Nevin
···

At 10:47 AM 4/7/2003, Richard Marken wrote: