Quote:
Thing is, for 99% of people who read this thread, seeing your initial post saying "show contempt to a girl", they'll probably think in the same way I did. Regardless of how Ekman categorises a contempt face, if you come out and say to those of us who haven't read Ekman's categories (which, I imagine most people asking questions on here, and quite a few who are answering won't have done), then we're not going to know about Ekman's definition. Contempt in the real sense of the meaning is how I described it below. So you coming out and saying show contempt is taken as showing contempt, not as smiling in a certain way. Contempt, as the dictionary definition I provided below, and as most people would define the word means you hate someone a lot and think they are completely worthless.
Now I can't disagree with what you've put - we have both said the same thing all the way through I think; that a big smile is good for initial attraction and general use, but a smirk (or contempt as you call it) is good for building sexual tension. Personally I use the smirk more often than you seem to want to, but that's a preference thing and how I go - I'm not an overly big cheesy smile person, so the smirk fits in more with my persona.
I'm conscious of not carrying this on much longer, because we're both saying the same thing and it's getting to the point of taking the thread off topic after we've both pretty much agreed on the advice given to the opening poster. However, two final points I'd like to make;
1) Firstly, the use of theory is great. Don't get me wrong there. But if you're going to use theory in posts on this forum, then you've got to flag that up. Saying after four posts "oh I'm using the definition that Paul Ekman uses" is not much use. Make that clearer from the beginning and it qualifies more of what you're saying.
2) I'd possibly argue that the categories are a bit too thin anyway. What about confusion? What about a face of total concentration? And, for instance, the smirk I'm using isn't really "contempt" even as you describe it - I'm not looking down at the girl, I'm not thinking I'm better than her, even a little bit. It's just really to make the smile look more sexual. Now if that falls under Ekman's categorisation of 'contempt' then, fine, you can call it 'contempt', but again, you need to show where you've got that from, not just say it's a sign of contempt - because in terms of the actual definition of contempt, a smirk that is trying to be more sexual but is still good natured is not contemptuous. It's merely a more sexual representation of a smile. You've not mentioned Ekman's categories until your what, fourth post? Until that point, why would people not think you're talking about the actual definition of contempt? Tell them from the beginning that you're using Ekman's categorisation, and that at least moves us away from thinking you're advocating looking at a girl as though you despise her and think she is worthless (the actual definition of contempt)!
I'm mentioning those things not to be overly critical of you, but because what you've said has been quite useful eventually. Had it been better flagged out from the start that you were using Ekman's categorisations, then we could have saved three or four quite long posts each, because I think we'd have seen that we were both agreeing. The confusion was that your definition of contempt seemed to be miles away from what contempt actually is; now that you've given Ekman's categories, your use of the word makes slightly more sense. I don't know a great deal of theoretical stuff, I just say what I see, so I'm normally more than happy to see someone like yourself come in and give a more "scientific", theoretical viewpoint, whether that agrees or disagrees with my opinion (and, as you know, I take a lot of notice of what you have to say, because it's usually good stuff). However, even for my own benefit in the future, if you want to use theoretical stuff, make sure you tell us where that theory has come from early on to give more credence and understanding to your own points.
Anyway, like I said, getting off topic slightly, so I think to summarise for both of us towards the opening post; learning the right time to smile and the right time to Grin/Smirk is very important, and both have their uses. Smiling big isn't a sign of beta, it builds comfort and makes you more approachable. It is, however, perhaps not overly sexual, certainly not as much as the grin/smirk/"contempt face". Hence why it is important to know when to use both.
I feel you, dude, I don't even think about the value of the word to be perfectly honest. I didn't mean to confuse you and I agree with what you are trying to say, I don't at all despise women. I would in your same place be arguing but you know I have to remember that not everyone sees the world as I do and I do forget with regularity. Just like you know the world different than I do and likely know tons about stuff I don't. Sorry about the mix up bro, go read Emotions Revealed, you'll understand what I am saying, plus in general it's a great book and teach you a lot about humans and emotion.
Concentration normally falls under anger. When you look at the face most people give it's brows lowered and intensity around the eyes, same with anger. This is also the same reaction you would need hunting for food back in the days, you wouldn't want any other emotion if you were hunting a wooly mammoth. It doesn't mean that you are incredibly angry but I know when I play pool and gain focus my face can look very angry. I've also heard people at poker tables say I looked like I was mad dogging them but I apologized and said it was my focus face.
Confusion is a combo of fear and anger with some people, fear and sadness with others. We all deal with our confusion differently and thus react different when we experience it. A lot of our emotions are a combination of two. Someone can cry and be happy. Someone can be afraid and angry, someone can be surprised(a face very close to Fear) and happy.
Our emotions can be a jumble of multiple emotions. I'd even say at points we experience all of them, a death is a great example of how you experience the full spectrum. When you first hear about it you are surprised, then you are sad. Sometimes you try and be happy thus force some small amount of happiness. You may be angry at them for dying. Disgusted with their death and thus show contempt for the reason behind it. All the while afraid about how you are going to go on without them.
It is also important to remember there are different intensities of emotion, so if you are thinking that a slight amount of contempt in one situation is brutal then I can see why you are upset. However if you look at the fact that when we are asked to do something we feel is below us we show contempt then you realize that feeling of superiority isn't as upsetting as you think. I mean when someone who is working for me does somethings I know I've shown contempt and yes I did feel better than them if only for the moment.
Which brings me to my next point, emotions are moment to moment. It's not as if we experience the emotion for years and years. Mourning a death is a perfect example of how you literally can feel opposite emotions in a short period of time. An emotion is temporary, it is what you feel at this moment that doesn't mean it is how you feel at every moment.
It's not that you are wrong there are different feelings but a lot of times they are merely mixed together and thus we gain confusion, worrying, mourning, concentration, or whatever else. Oh yeah Ekman's stuff isn't considered theory these days, it's pretty much just accepted as fact. It's been proven in multiple studies (not just his). That is why I don't write theory, because it's not considered theory in the scientific community.
I don't think we are too far off topic and like you said because of the way my wording may have come out it's good you helped define what I was saying. So no biggie. We both agree as you said.
CHAT
