Latest revision as of 16:08, 18 January 2016

Outline Thesis - "When we know how you feel"

Introduction - Undermining promises

Facial emotion analysis is booming business with multimillion dollar investments. All current tools for emotion analysis are grounded in Paul Ekmans theory of the 7 basic emotions, even though this theory is disputed. Besides, theory shows there can be a major gap between feeling and facial expression.

What is worrisome is that, when projecting current assumptions of and proposals for this technology 5-10 years into the further, one can only conclude that implementations of the technology will undermine its current promises. I can distinguish between two potential consequences of facial emotion technology that unease me.

Further refinement of public 'theatre' in human interactions, not because of the theatre in itself (as I claim it is only human to 'act'), but because this development is contrary to what is promised by the companies developing emotion analysis technologies.
Commodification of emotions internalises the focus on facial expressions. This leads not only to expressions that are expressed because of their effect instead of the affective state of the person. It can also lead to a more superficial understanding of notions such as happiness, as (current) proposals for emotion analysis equate pleasure (laughing when watching a cat/dog video) with happiness.

The fact that this technology is theoretically/scientific not well founded only adds to these worries, as it exposes that companies that use these technologies appeal to our imagination, without worrying too much about treading careful.

Thesis structure

I started my graduation project by researching the foundations of facial emotion analysis software. Currently, I am distilling this into a paper^[1]. Besides, I will be presenting and discussing this paper in the Winter School organised by the Algorithmic Governmentality work group at Namur University. This paper addresses a first audience of my graduation project: the academic world. In order to address more audiences I will have to formulate those, and have to find befitting translations of my argument.

I see the potential of this paper as the glue between these various translations of my argument. Thereby not only ordering my work for the reader, but forcing me as maker to connect the dots and fragments. These fragments can be either (1) quotes/sections from my paper, (2) written scenes, (3) setups for experiments, (4) textual reflections on these experiments, scenes and other personal notes.

This fragmented set-up allows me to wander, while it forces me to 'write' to a conclusion, a point, a climax, or to formulate an ending question. Nonetheless, in my thesis there is more for speculation and justification of/elaboration on my current practice then there is in an academic paper.

↑ For this paper I already received editorial feedback from Matthew Fuller (Computational Culture).

[1] For this paper I already received editorial feedback from Matthew Fuller (Computational Culture).

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-= Thesis structure =
+= Outline Thesis - &quot;When we know how you feel&quot; =
-Currently, I am already writing at an academic level on the assumptions that underlie the emotion analysis software: what does the software do, what do they define as ‘emotions’, and what are potential applications and I am touching upon what those applications can mean for human identity? (a substantial 5000 words)
+== Introduction - Undermining promises ==
-In my thesis I have a bit more headroom for speculation and justification of/elaboration on my current practice.
+Facial emotion analysis is booming business with multimillion dollar investments. All current tools for emotion analysis are grounded in Paul Ekmans theory of the 7 basic emotions, even though this theory is disputed. Besides, theory shows there can be a major gap between feeling and facial expression.
-I see the potential of this paper as the glue between the parts of my work. Thereby not only ordering my work for the reader, but forcing me as maker to connect the dots and fragments. These fragments can be either (1) quotes/sections from my paper, (2) written scenes, (3) setups for experiments, (4) textual reflections on these experiments, scenes and other personal notes.
+What is worrisome is that, when projecting current assumptions of and proposals for this technology 5-10 years into the further, one can only conclude that implementations of the technology will undermine its current promises. I can distinguish between two potential consequences of facial emotion technology that unease me.
-These fragmented setup allows me to wander, while forces me to ‘write’ to a conclusion, a point, a climax, or to formulate an ending question.
+# Further refinement of public 'theatre' in human interactions, not because of the theatre in itself (as I claim it is only human to 'act'), but because this development is contrary to what is promised by the companies developing emotion analysis technologies.
+# Commodification of emotions internalises the focus on facial expressions. This leads not only to expressions that are expressed because of their effect instead of the affective state of the person. It can also lead to a more superficial understanding of notions such as happiness, as (current) proposals for emotion analysis equate pleasure (laughing when watching a cat/dog video) with happiness.
-== Main question (remaining) ==
+The fact that this technology is theoretically/scientific not well founded only adds to these worries, as it exposes that companies that use these technologies appeal to our imagination, without worrying too much about treading careful.
-What is my POV as maker?! What is the influence of my/the camera?!
+== Thesis structure ==
-== Topics ==
+I started my graduation project by researching the foundations of facial emotion analysis software. Currently, I am distilling this into a paper<ref>For this paper I already received editorial feedback from Matthew Fuller (Computational Culture).
+</ref>. Besides, I will be presenting and discussing this paper in the Winter School organised by the Algorithmic Governmentality work group at Namur University. This paper addresses a first audience of my graduation project: the academic world. In order to address more audiences I will have to formulate those, and have to find befitting translations of my argument.
-Emotion analysis (&amp; all QS) creates a monoculture of identities. This means it (1) shapes identities and (2) shapes them towards the same ideal (pre-programmed).
+I see the potential of this paper as the glue between these various translations of my argument. Thereby not only ordering my work for the reader, but forcing me as maker to connect the dots and fragments. These fragments can be either (1) quotes/sections from my paper, (2) written scenes, (3) setups for experiments, (4) textual reflections on these experiments, scenes and other personal notes.
-<pre>Like puberty: in the drive of being special most teenagers dress the same according to their subculture (that sub-culture is what distinguishes them). </pre>
+This fragmented set-up allows me to wander, while it forces me to 'write' to a conclusion, a point, a climax, or to formulate an ending question. Nonetheless, in my thesis there is more for speculation and justification of/elaboration on my current practice then there is in an academic paper.
-As in my paper: assumption of emotion analysis is that they open up minds to read, but forget that they put as much in there. Also note: they don’t read minds at all, they read faces. A quote from a Phd. presentation: “It doesn’t try to interpret what is written, it tries to interpret the intention of the writer” (or something like that).
+<references />