Facial expressions theory Charles Darwin | Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by natural selection

Facial expressions theory Charles Darwin

Darwin's Claim of Universals In Facial Expression Not Challenged

Darwin’s Claim of Universals In Facial Expression Not Challenged
Paul Ekman and Dacher Keltner

Reprinted with permission from The Paul Ekman Group

Paul Ekman, Emeritus Professor, University of California, San Francisco Dacher Keltner, Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Lisa Feldman-Barrett’s recent contribution (New York Times, February 28, 2014) seeks to undermine the science showing universality in the interpretation of facial expressions. In her eyes, recent evidence “challenges[ing] the theory, attributed to Charles Darwin, that facial movements might be evolved behaviors for expressing emotion.” Such a disagreement really belongs in exchanges of findings and theory in a scientific journal, evaluated by colleagues as evidence accumulates, not the public press. This is not the first time that Feldman-Barrett publicized her views in the press. We didn’t respond then, but feel compelled to do so now so that the public is not misled, and is apprised of the broader, Darwin-inspired science of emotional expression many scientists are working on today.

First, let’s get the science right. Darwin never claimed in his great book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) that all facial expressions are universal, only a specific set of expressions that he had observed and studied. Nearly one-hundred years later Silvan Tomkins helped Ekman and Carrol Izard refine and add to Darwin’s list. In the late sixties, Izard and Ekman in separate studies each showed photographs from Tomkins’ own collection, to people in various literate cultures, Western and Non-Western. They found strong cross cultural agreement in the labeling of those expressions. Ekman closed the loophole that observing mass media might account for cross cultural agreement by studying people in a Stone Age culture in New Guinea who had seen few if any outsiders and no media portrayals of emotion. These preliterate people also recognized the same emotions when shown the Darwin-Tomkins set. The capacity for humans in radically different cultures to label facial expressions with terms from a list of emotion terms has replicated nearly 200 hundred times.

Feldman Barrett is right to ask whether individuals in radically different cultures provide similar interpretations of facial expressions if allowed to describe the expressions on their own terms, rather than a list of emotion terms. Haidt and Keltner did such a study comparing the free responses to the Darwin-Tomkins set of expressions and some other expressions, with people in rural India and the U.S. Once again the findings of universality were clear cut, and evidence of universality in the expression of embarrassment was also found. The evidence on the judgment of the Darwin-Tomkins facial expressions is robust; so we suppose is Feldman-Barrett’s evidence for the expressions not covered in the Darwin-Tomkins set. She has missed that point, not understanding the difference between unselected and theoretically selected facial expressions.

Unversal Facial Expressions

You might also like

"In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude  — Discovery Institute
In his February lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution.

Charles Darwin Evolution T-shirt Atheist Tee Gray 2XL
Apparel ()
  • 100% combed cotton jersey
  • Tear-away label
  • 4.3-oz.
  • 32 Singles for extreme softness
  • 1x1 Baby rib-knit set-in collar


Ray Eston Smith Jr
What are the fundamental laws of social morality?

Here's what I think:

First Law. Don't initiate force or fraud. This is absolutely true because people will not voluntarily associate with anyone who coerces or defrauds them. If a group of people don't obey this law, then they aren't voluntarily associated, therefore they are not a society, therefore social morality does not apply to them, anymore than it applies to rocks and trees.

Second Law. There are no other laws, because any other law would violate the first law.

Note: I am distinguishing between social morality, which people…

I don't think there are really any laws of social morality it is just social order.

Few scientists and religious scholars have seriously pondered how science and religion can be reconciled. But times are changing. Not long ago I attended two meetings that brought together scientists, theologians, and religious scholars to discuss just that issue. The first gathering was part of the Science and the Spiritual Quest II program ( sponsored by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California. The other was organized by the American Association for the…

Related Posts