Imitation

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.02.0800)]

Bruce Nevin 2003.04.01 22:44 EST)

> Rick Marken (2003.03.31.1510)]
>
> > Bruce Nevin (2003.03.31 13:18 EST)--
> >
> > Suppose perception of the pattern in the behavior of others (perhaps in
> > terms of themes or features) sets references for the way many things are
> > done (music, warfare, etc.)
>
>Sorry, sir, but as the PCT policeman it is my duty to cite you for a
>minor PCT violation. Perceptions don't set references in PCT.

If systems set references based on memory but not on observation, it is
considerably more difficult to understand how to model imitation.

I think that there is no question that imitation is based on observation. That's
what imitation is, by definition. You were cited for saying that
"perception...sets the reference". Judge Powers gave you a pass under the
assumption that you misspoke (I'm incline to go along with the Judge in this
case). I'm sure you meant that references are set by the actor _on the basis of_
observation of the to be imitated perception.

How would you model two autonomous control systems such that one can
imitate the other? It seems to me that this can only be done by the
imitator perceiving the behavioral outputs of the other and setting
internal references accordingly

Yes. That shows that my paraphrase is exactly what you meant to say.

- either (a) references for perceptions of
one's own outputs, or (b) references for control of other variables by
means of outputs that mimic those of the other. What do you propose?

Exactly that. Though implementing such a model would be an interesting challenge.
Maybe I'll try it. I agree that imitation is an important aspect of learning. I
think there are two distinct kinds of imitation: one in which the imitated
behavior can be seen in nearly the same way by both the imitatee and the imitator
(this would be the kind of imitation where I move a cursor on the screen in some
pattern and you imitate making the same pattern with the cursor) and the far more
interesting care in which the imitated behavior is seen quite differently by
imitatee ad imitator (as when I try to dance like Fred Astaire).

Best

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

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.02.1230)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 13:22 EST)--

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.0800)--

>I think that there is no question that imitation is based on observation.

The question is, what does "based on observation" and "on the basis of
observation" mean?

I think it means monitoring the behavior ot the perceptual signal to be imitated
and then acting so as to produce in actuality (when imitating what both imitatee
and imitator see in the same way) or imagination (when imitating what imitatee and
imitator see from different perspectives) the same behavior of the perceptual
signal.

> > How would you model two autonomous control systems such that one can

The question is,
what correlates visual perceptions of Fred's body with kinesthetic
perceptions of your body? And what inside the model correlates perceptions
in mode A with perceptions in mode B such that an observer using mode A
perceives the model outputs and the imitated example's outputs as being the
same?

That is, indeed, the $64,000 question. I think the answer must ultimately be
based on empirical test This is because I think that the only way imitation can
be done by a PCT model is for the model to learn to control for various
perceptions that, as a side effect, produce the result one wants to imitate. For
example, the only way I can know that the by producing a certain configuration of
tensions in my face that I am producing what someone else will see as a smile is
to have learned, either by looking in a mirror or by being told that what others
are seeing when I'm feeling those tensions is a smile. So now I know that by
producing that configuration of tensions I will be seen as smiling. The empirical
test would be to see how someone perceives what the result of controlling
particular lower level perceptions is. They could perceive the to be imitated
result in a a mirror, a verbal report or possibly other means. But at some point I
think they would have to have had some perceptual indication of what what they are
doing looks like to others.

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

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 13:22 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.0800)--

> If systems set references based on memory but not on observation, it is
> considerably more difficult to understand how to model imitation.

I think that there is no question that imitation is based on observation.
[...] I'm sure you meant that references are set by
the actor _on the basis of_ observation of the to be imitated perception.

The question is, what does "based on observation" and "on the basis of observation" mean?

> How would you model two autonomous control systems such that one can
> imitate the other? It seems to me that this can only be done by the
> imitator perceiving the behavioral outputs of the other and setting
> internal references accordingly

Yes. That shows that my paraphrase is exactly what you meant to say.

> - either (a) references for perceptions of
> one's own outputs, or (b) references for control of other variables by
> means of outputs that mimic those of the other. What do you propose?

Exactly that.

You mean both (a) and (b)? Reminds me of comic dialogs like "Are you going to take it, or leave it?" "Yes" except that (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive. What combination are you proposing?

[...] there are two distinct kinds of imitation: one in which the imitated
behavior can be seen in nearly the same way by both the imitatee and the imitator
(this would be the kind of imitation where I move a cursor on the screen in some
pattern and you imitate making the same pattern with the cursor)

Yet another tracking task. Use a mirror as you imitate Fred Astaire.

and the far more
interesting care in which the imitated behavior is seen quite differently by
imitatee ad imitator (as when I try to dance like Fred Astaire).

No mirrors. To model this requires modelling at least two modes of perception. You use the visual mode to perceive the configurations and transitions of Fred's body parts and the kinesthetic mode to perceive the configurations and transitions of your own body parts. The question is, what correlates visual perceptions of Fred's body with kinesthetic perceptions of your body? And what inside the model correlates perceptions in mode A with perceptions in mode B such that an observer using mode A perceives the model outputs and the imitated example's outputs as being the same?

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 08:00 AM 4/2/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0402.1426)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 13:22 EST)
  >

No mirrors. To model this requires modelling at least two modes of
perception. You use the visual mode to perceive the configurations and
transitions of Fred's body parts and the kinesthetic mode to perceive the
configurations and transitions of your own body parts. The question is,
what correlates visual perceptions of Fred's body with kinesthetic
perceptions of your body? And what inside the model correlates perceptions
in mode A with perceptions in mode B such that an observer using mode A
perceives the model outputs and the imitated example's outputs as being the
same?

I think you need mirrors, unless you yourself are an accomplished dancer. You
need to see what you are doing to compare that with what you saw Fred doing.
Then departures from the reference provided by Fred can be controlled by you
kinesthetically. Finally, you will have established kinesthetic references
that will allow you to control your motions without further visual input.

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 15:51 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0402.1426)--

I think you need mirrors, unless you yourself are an accomplished dancer. You
need to see what you are doing to compare that with what you saw Fred doing.
Then departures from the reference provided by Fred can be controlled by you
kinesthetically. Finally, you will have established kinesthetic references
that will allow you to control your motions without further visual input.

Could be. In that case it's imitation of the first type I outlined, ("yet another tracking task"). But I think you're talking about fine tuning the mimickry.

The question is still how to model the second type, e.g. imitation of a visually perceived configuration or transition of limbs when you can't see the configuration of your own limbs. Imagine what it feels like to be in that configuration and then control that kinesthetic reference.

Then to fine tune it you need mirrors. But to fine tune your smirk, smile, or glare you need a mirror too. And in either case you still might not reduce error to near zero. That's a function of strength, muscle/tendon stretch ("flexibility"), and refinement of one's control systems for body configurations through practice ("skill").

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 02:27 PM 4/2/2003, you wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 23:58 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.1230)

I think that the only way imitation can
be done by a PCT model is for the model to learn to control for various
perceptions that, as a side effect, produce the result one wants to imitate.

While we control (A) our observations of various "side effects" (B, C, D, ...) of controlling (A) must be stored in memory, whence references for controlling e.g. (B) can be retrieved in the future. (This is what I meant by saying that perception of the behavioral outputs of others sets references - i.e. gets stored in memory.)

For
example, the only way I can know that the by producing a certain configuration of
tensions in my face that I am producing what someone else will see as a smile is
to have learned, either by looking in a mirror or by being told that what others
are seeing when I'm feeling those tensions is a smile.

I think smiles and such are special cases and therefore unsuitable examples. Since at least Darwin it's been observed that such expressive gestures must have an evolutionary basis. There are almost certainly innate systems for controlling them. A pleasurable experience is accompanied by release of endorphins and a rictus of pleasure. Deliberately smiling causes a release of endorphins. Better to deal with examples that don't have so much going on.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:29 PM 4/2/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.02 23:58 EST)--

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.1230)
>For example, the only way I can know that the by producing a certain
>configuration of tensions in my face that I am producing what someone
> else will see as a smile is to have learned, either by looking in a
> mirror or by being told that what others are seeing when I'm
> feeling those tensions is a smile.

I think smiles and such are special cases and therefore unsuitable
examples. Since at least Darwin it's been observed that such expressive
gestures must have an evolutionary basis. There are almost certainly innate
systems for controlling them. A pleasurable experience is accompanied by
release of endorphins and a rictus of pleasure. Deliberately smiling causes
a release of endorphins. Better to deal with examples that don't have so
much going on.

Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how people
learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure out that
the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling correspond to
the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling. So I think smiling is a
perfectly good example of imitating a perception (the visual configuration
"smile") by controlling different perceptions (the kinesthetic configuration
that is seen by others as the visiual configuration "smile" rather than the
kinesthetic configuration that is seen by others as the visual configuration
"frown" or "squint" or even "fist").

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.0604)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)

Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how people
learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure out that
the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling correspond to
the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.

I know of no evidence that children learn to smile. Do you?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0750)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.0604)--

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)

> Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how people
> learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure out that
> the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling correspond to
> the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.

I know of no evidence that children learn to smile. Do you?

None at all. That was my point. Even if the production of a smile is an innate
(unlearned) control action (control of a kinesthetic configuration) it would still be
necessary for a person to learn to produce that kinesthetic perception as an
imitation of the visual configuration seen as a smile.

Best

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

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0830)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)--

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)--

>Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how
>people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to
>figure out that the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own
>smiling correspond to the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.

It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures and
correlation of them with one's own that may be innate.

I think it's highly unlikely that this correlation is innate. I think it's easy to
demonstrate that it is not. I demonstrated this with my own kids. It's easy to
make babies smile by tickling and making faces. I think in many cases the parent
is smiling when the baby smiles so it can look like the baby is imitating the
parents smile. But I remember testing this by tickling the kids while scowling at
the them and they just smiled and giggled their heads off. Again, it seem to me
that kids can create the kinesthetic configuration perceptions associated with
what we see as a smile at a very young age. But they don't seem to know how to
create those perceptions as an imitation of a particular visual configuration
perception (of an adult smiling) until they are a bit older.

What may be an innate goal is _to_ imitate. I can't believe that kids come into
the world knowing how to imitate: that is, knowing how to produce the kinesthetic
perceptions that are imitations of various visual perceptions. But I can believe
that they come into the world _wanting_ to imitate (in general). That would
certainly be a great help in the learning process.

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

Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0750)]

> Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.0604)--
>
> Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)
>
> > Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain

how people

> > learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure

out that

> > the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling

correspond to

> > the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.
>
> I know of no evidence that children learn to smile. Do you?

None at all. That was my point. Even if the production of a smile is an

innate

(unlearned) control action (control of a kinesthetic configuration) it

would still be

necessary for a person to learn to produce that kinesthetic perception as

an

imitation of the visual configuration seen as a smile.

Best

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

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)--

Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure out that the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling correspond to the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.

It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures and correlation of them with one's own that may be innate. Of course, you could be right, it is possible that it is all learned, and that the striking cross-cultural and cross-species parallels (where neither mirrors nor instruction exist) noted by Darwin and many others could be happenstance. It could be that these are merely other cultural patterns, and their universality, and their commonality with animal gestures, while unique among cultural patterns, is simply one of the possibilities out of random selection, just as one of the possible outcomes of shuffling a deck of cards is that they come out perfectly sorted in order and in suits. Their stability through time makes the probability infinitesimal, but it is possible, you could be right. I am only suggesting that as a source of data to model it would be wiser to steer clear of facial expressions simply so as to rule out the commonly made non-PCT argument that there is something innate going on here. Makes for a better demonstration.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 01:04 AM 4/3/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

sory for the previous one...sorry for my typos somethiimes.

This is EXCELLENT. I cannot help but thinkk of Lorentz's work.

FIGURING OUT is an essential comcept.

How doe Inuits figure out the weather patterns? How do women figure out how
to make children?
Evolutionary?
Trans-generational modeling?
Innate wisdom which is enacted?

I cannot help also but think about Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin...

The re-creation of life by imitation...with our own individual stamp...
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0750)]

> Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.0604)--
>
> Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)
>
> > Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain

how people

> > learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to figure

out that

> > the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own smiling

correspond to

> > the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else smiling.
>
> I know of no evidence that children learn to smile. Do you?

None at all. That was my point. Even if the production of a smile is an

innate

(unlearned) control action (control of a kinesthetic configuration) it

would still be

necessary for a person to learn to produce that kinesthetic perception as

an

imitation of the visual configuration seen as a smile.

Best

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

There is a body of research (Paul Ekman, Nathanson, etc) that emerges from
the ground breaking work of Silvan Tomkins (Affect Theory)which reveals that
there are certain affects (8?) that are prewired and the facial expression
are universal. In addition, the reseach shows that infants display the full
range of affect.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnevin@CISCO.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:01 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)--
At 01:04 AM 4/3/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how
people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to
figure out that the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own
smiling correspond to the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else

smiling.

It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures and
correlation of them with one's own that may be innate. Of course, you could
be right, it is possible that it is all learned, and that the striking
cross-cultural and cross-species parallels (where neither mirrors nor
instruction exist) noted by Darwin and many others could be happenstance.
It could be that these are merely other cultural patterns, and their
universality, and their commonality with animal gestures, while unique
among cultural patterns, is simply one of the possibilities out of random
selection, just as one of the possible outcomes of shuffling a deck of
cards is that they come out perfectly sorted in order and in suits. Their
stability through time makes the probability infinitesimal, but it is
possible, you could be right. I am only suggesting that as a source of data
to model it would be wiser to steer clear of facial expressions simply so
as to rule out the commonly made non-PCT argument that there is something
innate going on here. Makes for a better demonstration.

         /Bruce Nevin

I was also thinking about the work of the child psychiatrist Greenspan and
the emotional communication of mother-infant AROUND a task...
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Nevin" <bnevin@CISCO.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)--
At 01:04 AM 4/3/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

>Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain how
>people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to
>figure out that the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's own
>smiling correspond to the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else

smiling.

It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures and
correlation of them with one's own that may be innate. Of course, you

could

be right, it is possible that it is all learned, and that the striking
cross-cultural and cross-species parallels (where neither mirrors nor
instruction exist) noted by Darwin and many others could be happenstance.
It could be that these are merely other cultural patterns, and their
universality, and their commonality with animal gestures, while unique
among cultural patterns, is simply one of the possibilities out of random
selection, just as one of the possible outcomes of shuffling a deck of
cards is that they come out perfectly sorted in order and in suits. Their
stability through time makes the probability infinitesimal, but it is
possible, you could be right. I am only suggesting that as a source of

data

to model it would be wiser to steer clear of facial expressions simply so
as to rule out the commonly made non-PCT argument that there is something
innate going on here. Makes for a better demonstration.

         /Bruce Nevin

Very interesting. Markic chain research on monkeys and their offsping has
shown that the mother pushes the baby away. That had been related to
attachment behavior theory. that is, maybe, if the baby does not pull out,
the mom pushes out.
Makes sense, being a woman who has had childeren (No punt, I never thought
of it in those physical terms).

I like stochastic modeling, as causality is seen as a back and forth in
natural enviornments, a shaping of behavior (mutual?)

paule
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0830)]

> Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)--
>
> Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)--
>
> >Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn't explain

how

> >people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example, still has to
> >figure out that the _kinesthetic_ perceptions that correspond to it's

own

> >smiling correspond to the _visual_ perceptions that is someone else

smiling.

>
> It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures and
> correlation of them with one's own that may be innate.

I think it's highly unlikely that this correlation is innate. I think it's

easy to

demonstrate that it is not. I demonstrated this with my own kids. It's

easy to

make babies smile by tickling and making faces. I think in many cases the

parent

is smiling when the baby smiles so it can look like the baby is imitating

the

parents smile. But I remember testing this by tickling the kids while

scowling at

the them and they just smiled and giggled their heads off. Again, it seem

to me

that kids can create the kinesthetic configuration perceptions associated

with

what we see as a smile at a very young age. But they don't seem to know

how to

create those perceptions as an imitation of a particular visual

configuration

perception (of an adult smiling) until they are a bit older.

What may be an innate goal is _to_ imitate. I can't believe that kids

come into

the world knowing how to imitate: that is, knowing how to produce the

kinesthetic

perceptions that are imitations of various visual perceptions. But I can

believe

that they come into the world _wanting_ to imitate (in general). That

would

certainly be a great help in the learning process.

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

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.1340)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 13:44 EST)–
Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0830)–

I think it’s highly unlikely that this correlation
is innate.
I think I see where we’re cross-threaded.
You’re testing on the assumption that they are learning by imitating.

No. I was testing to see if they are imitating. If they were able to control
for imitation then they would smile when I smiled and frown when I frowned.
In fact, they smiled no matter what I did. So they were clearly not imitating.

This assumption blocks consideration of the hypothesis
that I am suggesting. According to this hypothesis, what is innate is the
recognition of that expression (smile) as the same as what I do that feels
like this (smile).
Yes, I know that is your hypothesis. I think that that hypothesis is wrong.
But you can change my mind by presenting evidence for this hypothesis.
Got research?
Given the existence of this hypothesis and the well-known
evidence for it
I don’t believe there is any evidence for it. But if there is I would sure
like to see it. Can you describe what you think is evidence that people
can innately recognition the link between the feeling of smiling and what
a smile looks like?
I’m wondering if the hypothesis is more general -
if our kinesthetic perceptions of body configurations are innately correlated
with our visual perceptions of the body configurations of others. It sure
makes good evolutionary sense.
I don’t see this. What would be the evolutionary sense of me knowing, innately,
the correlation between my kinesthetic perceptions and my visual perceptions
of other people?
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

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 13:44 EST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.03.0830)–

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 11:00 EST)–

Rick Marken (2003.04.02.2200)–

Even if smiling does has an evolutionary basis, that wouldn’t
explain how

people learn to imitate a smile. An infant, for example,
still has to

figure out that the kinesthetic perceptions that correspond to
it’s own

smiling correspond to the visual perceptions that is someone
else smiling.

It is precisely the recognition of certain expressive gestures
and

correlation of them with one’s own that may be innate.

I think it’s highly unlikely that this correlation is innate. […] I
remember testing this by tickling the kids while scowling at

the them and they just smiled and giggled their heads off.

I think I see where we’re cross-threaded.
You’re testing on the assumption that they are learning by imitating.
This assumption blocks consideration of the hypothesis that I am
suggesting. According to this hypothesis, what is innate is the
recognition of that expression (smile) as the same as what I do that
feels like this (smile). No imitation, no learning. An already existing
control system recognizes an observed facial configuration and associates
it (as in Bill’s beloved Category recognizers) with internal muscle
tensions, affect, etc. Of course when the baby recognizes one expression
(frown) it is not obligated to express that recognition by doing the
same, why not smile and giggle about the interaction, regardless of the
expressions that you make?
Given the existence of this hypothesis and the well-known evidence for it
I’m only suggesting that it would be a wiser course to steer clear of
universally recognized affective gestures and model something that is
unequivocally imitation. Like the mocking mimicry that adolescents love
to inflict. Hang out with a teenager and see if it’s obvious how they do
it. Or go dancing and learn by observation to do some dance steps that
another couple is doing. Or learn something like the Macarena or Salsa
dancing by watching others around you do it. No mirrors. No coach saying
“that’s better - no a bit more to the right - your
right.” You know how to lift your arm like that, you could do it in
the dark. You know how to step to the left and pivot on your left foot
like that so that your next step to your right is 90 degrees in
that direction … umm, clockwise, now that you ask me to put it
in words.

I’m wondering if the hypothesis is more general - if our kinesthetic
perceptions of body configurations are innately correlated with our
visual perceptions of the body configurations of others. It sure makes
good evolutionary sense. And it would go a very long way to explaining
imitation and mimicry. Something even monkeys do, now and in the probable
evolutionary origins of gossip.

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 08:31 AM 4/3/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1738)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 13:44 EST)

I'm wondering if the hypothesis is more general - if our kinesthetic
perceptions of body configurations are innately correlated with our
visual perceptions of the body configurations of others. It sure makes
good evolutionary sense. And it would go a very long way to explaining
imitation and mimicry. Something even monkeys do, now and in the
probable evolutionary origins of gossip.

Now that I understand your argument (I'm a little slow), I agree.

interesting...in particular o the fact that gosspi included language.
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gregory" <bruce@JOINCANADANOW.ORG>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Imitation

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1738)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.04.03 13:44 EST)

> I'm wondering if the hypothesis is more general - if our kinesthetic
> perceptions of body configurations are innately correlated with our
> visual perceptions of the body configurations of others. It sure makes
> good evolutionary sense. And it would go a very long way to explaining
> imitation and mimicry. Something even monkeys do, now and in the
> probable evolutionary origins of gossip.

Now that I understand your argument (I'm a little slow), I agree.