May 18, 2022·edited May 18, 2022Liked by Mark Changizi
Mark, that looks like an interesting book, will have to read it. I'm sure it will go over these types of issues I've researched during the pandemic. No doubt you go into much more detail and about many more aspects of facial expressions and the necessity of sharing emotions with one another.
I hope to add to the anticipation of the book release with a study I've often referenced about masking faces, facial expressions, how it evokes a fear response in the amygdala similar to seeing snakes. The study speaks of masking as neutral faces, not necessarily cloth coverings. But the same principle applies. Fear-inducing. Is why they were chosen as pandemic NPI, to increase social distancing, make us fearful of one another. Turns out full faces, unmasked, are necessary for healthy human sociological interactions.
Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear
"Notwithstanding its central role in shaping mammalian and primate evolution, predation is now a less serious agent for disrupting genetic lineages than are hostile conspecifics, at least for the large-bodied hominoid primates, the Great Apes and humans. The major part of violent deaths in these species can be attributed to conflicts between conspecifics, not only among humans, but also chimpanzees (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996; de Waal, 2005).
The prefrontal influence on facial as well as other channels of emotional expression helps to maintain conflicts at a symbolic level, where the relative strength of the combatants can be evaluated from more or less convincing displays of power and submissiveness, which prevents escalating the conflict into an actual fight that might result in injuries to the participants.
A substantial part of the signaling action in conflicts between individuals centers on the faces of the parties measuring their relative strength. As recognized by Darwin (1872/1998), the design of the face suggests that it has evolved as a means of communication. The facial muscles are unique in their function by primarily moving dermal tissue rather than body limbs, producing coordinated changes in the visual appearance of the face. The basic human facial displays are similar to those of other primates, but the human face has a more complex musculature than that of other primates, with a more versatile neural innervation, suggesting that the human ability to communicate by the face is better developed than that of our primate relatives (Dimberg & Öhman, 1996; Öhman, 2002)."
"Conclusions
The data reviewed in this article show that snakes and faces, as evolutionary fear relevant stimuli, systematically differ from fear-irrelevant stimuli in a suggestive way. First, they are more strongly and persistently conditioned to an aversive US than are neutral stimuli. Second, fear-related responses can be elicited from pictorial representations of both snakes and faces even with backward masking conditions that preclude conscious recognition. Third, snakes and threatening faces both appear to have attentional priority in visual search tasks. These findings are broadly congruent with characteristics of the neural network of fear delineated by LeDoux (1996) and colleagues. Snakes and faces have in common that they both are likely candidate stimuli for having been selected and primed by evolution. Indeed, they are both embedded in a rich set of evolutionary considerations with fruitful implications for empirical research."
Adding to that is this context provided by the legal rationale international courts have found to uphold burqa bans. Recognizing how essential the display of full human faces are to healthy society, us being able to live together, peacefully. Not about banning burqas in public for religious purposes, but also for banning all masks and veils. Including the surgical ones and scarves that have been required many places since 2020. The legally-recognized rationale for the bans didn't disappear just because of a viral threat. They remain as true today as they were only months before the pandemic started. The behavioral science changed during the pandemic, not the sociological and medical science.
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
Mark, that looks like an interesting book, will have to read it. I'm sure it will go over these types of issues I've researched during the pandemic. No doubt you go into much more detail and about many more aspects of facial expressions and the necessity of sharing emotions with one another.
I hope to add to the anticipation of the book release with a study I've often referenced about masking faces, facial expressions, how it evokes a fear response in the amygdala similar to seeing snakes. The study speaks of masking as neutral faces, not necessarily cloth coverings. But the same principle applies. Fear-inducing. Is why they were chosen as pandemic NPI, to increase social distancing, make us fearful of one another. Turns out full faces, unmasked, are necessary for healthy human sociological interactions.
Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
November 19, 2009
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00784.x
"Notwithstanding its central role in shaping mammalian and primate evolution, predation is now a less serious agent for disrupting genetic lineages than are hostile conspecifics, at least for the large-bodied hominoid primates, the Great Apes and humans. The major part of violent deaths in these species can be attributed to conflicts between conspecifics, not only among humans, but also chimpanzees (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996; de Waal, 2005).
The prefrontal influence on facial as well as other channels of emotional expression helps to maintain conflicts at a symbolic level, where the relative strength of the combatants can be evaluated from more or less convincing displays of power and submissiveness, which prevents escalating the conflict into an actual fight that might result in injuries to the participants.
A substantial part of the signaling action in conflicts between individuals centers on the faces of the parties measuring their relative strength. As recognized by Darwin (1872/1998), the design of the face suggests that it has evolved as a means of communication. The facial muscles are unique in their function by primarily moving dermal tissue rather than body limbs, producing coordinated changes in the visual appearance of the face. The basic human facial displays are similar to those of other primates, but the human face has a more complex musculature than that of other primates, with a more versatile neural innervation, suggesting that the human ability to communicate by the face is better developed than that of our primate relatives (Dimberg & Öhman, 1996; Öhman, 2002)."
"Conclusions
The data reviewed in this article show that snakes and faces, as evolutionary fear relevant stimuli, systematically differ from fear-irrelevant stimuli in a suggestive way. First, they are more strongly and persistently conditioned to an aversive US than are neutral stimuli. Second, fear-related responses can be elicited from pictorial representations of both snakes and faces even with backward masking conditions that preclude conscious recognition. Third, snakes and threatening faces both appear to have attentional priority in visual search tasks. These findings are broadly congruent with characteristics of the neural network of fear delineated by LeDoux (1996) and colleagues. Snakes and faces have in common that they both are likely candidate stimuli for having been selected and primed by evolution. Indeed, they are both embedded in a rich set of evolutionary considerations with fruitful implications for empirical research."
Adding to that is this context provided by the legal rationale international courts have found to uphold burqa bans. Recognizing how essential the display of full human faces are to healthy society, us being able to live together, peacefully. Not about banning burqas in public for religious purposes, but also for banning all masks and veils. Including the surgical ones and scarves that have been required many places since 2020. The legally-recognized rationale for the bans didn't disappear just because of a viral threat. They remain as true today as they were only months before the pandemic started. The behavioral science changed during the pandemic, not the sociological and medical science.
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court
2019
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-08-27/netherlands-burqa-ban-enters-into-force/