I agree that “universality-through-functionality” (§4.2) is implausible as a theory explaining all universal facial expressions. At least some universal facial expressions do not have immediate functional explanations, seems to me. E.g. the angry open-mouth tooth-showing grimace / scowl was presumably functional in chimps, because they’re showing off their fangs as a credible signal that they’re dangerous. We don’t have any fangs to show off, but we still have that same expression.
But I’m also sympathetic to there being more than zero universal facial expressions that do have immediate functional explanations. Not sure if I’m disagreeing with you or not.
Tring to remember my state of mind when I wrote that (Yesterday), I think my objection was to the stronger statement that this explains all or most facial expressions.
Today, after reading your and Raemon’s responses, I find it a bit more plausible that more expressions have immediate functional explanations. But defiantly not all.
I’m trying to think of a way to give a confidence interval, but I don’t even know what it would mean for 20% of facial expression to have immediate functional explanations. What is meant by “20%”? What’s the measure?
Huh, I find the disgust example pretty plausible.
I agree that “universality-through-functionality” (§4.2) is implausible as a theory explaining all universal facial expressions. At least some universal facial expressions do not have immediate functional explanations, seems to me. E.g. the angry open-mouth tooth-showing grimace / scowl was presumably functional in chimps, because they’re showing off their fangs as a credible signal that they’re dangerous. We don’t have any fangs to show off, but we still have that same expression.
But I’m also sympathetic to there being more than zero universal facial expressions that do have immediate functional explanations. Not sure if I’m disagreeing with you or not.
Tring to remember my state of mind when I wrote that (Yesterday), I think my objection was to the stronger statement that this explains all or most facial expressions.
Today, after reading your and Raemon’s responses, I find it a bit more plausible that more expressions have immediate functional explanations. But defiantly not all.
I’m trying to think of a way to give a confidence interval, but I don’t even know what it would mean for 20% of facial expression to have immediate functional explanations. What is meant by “20%”? What’s the measure?