Dr. Ekman is a brilliant observer and scientist. I would argue however that whilst, I am trained and certified in Facial Action Coding System (FACS) it is only useful to a point depending on your final outcome/objective. You must employ several other applicable aspects of linguistics, kinesics, chronemics, haptics etc. to ascertain data for the specific contextual end goal. My focus is Deception Detection; others may focus on the therapeutic end of the spectrum and some are even utilizing this for Homeland security. Just because a person emotes a micro-expression (M.E.) it does not tell you why they emoted it. When a person expresses guilt you cannot say they must be guilty. You have to consider other variables. Are they expressing guilt because of a thought, a past experience, are they worried about not being believed. As Dr. Ekman Named it “the Othello Effect” (Ekman, 1985) there are a multitude of variables to consider is the point. The M.E. can give you insight to take your questioning, yet you have to be able to infer it or detect it first. If you are looking at notes you will inevitably miss the M.E. and be left empty handed. A true M.E. only lasts between 1/15th to 1/25th of a second. (Ekman & Rosenberg, 2006) Sure if you have it recorded and the camera is on the face proper you can watch it and play it back. Here is a tip to assist you; do not confuse the M.E. with the speech necessity, and be sure to use your peripheral vision to catch the M.E. easier. I would assert that employing structural linguistics to the equation. By doing so the ability to detect deception or determine the veracity of a given statement will assist in corroborating your analysis. Here is a short piece of data to consider. According to an analysis conducted on 31 research studies in different parts of the world he articulates these studies thusly,” Several factors influence the ability to detect truth and lies. Females are better at this task than males when they attempt to detect deceit in their friend’s romantic partners but they do not outperform men when they judge strangers. Moreover, people high in self-awareness introverts and good actors are relatively good lie detectors but socially anxious persons are relatively poor at detecting lies. Good lie detectors are more knowledgeable about diagnostic cues to deceit than poor lie detectors. Good Lie detectors’ further listen carefully what senders say or pay attention to both senders speech and behavior where as poor detectors pay attention to the senders behavior. (Vrij, 2008) This agreement of assessment of the research included in this primary source. It is something to consider. My experience in this field has not shown me a different conclusion. We must be open to things changing and new studies that emerge. Resources: Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, and marriage. Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books. Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. L. (2006). What the face reveals, basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (facs). Oxford University Press, USA. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit, pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley-Interscience.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:07:29 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015