Here is a link to something that looks promising.

From presentation to actual behind the scenes work, we may have hit paydirt.

http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs182......cle.html

What are your thoughts on this?

Very interesting. I am reminded of some books on body language that suggest consciously mirroring another person's posture and gestures when attempting to come to agreement with them. The idea is that you can bypass the conscious mind to evoke a positive emotion through mirroring. Deborah Tannen's work suggests doing this verbally as well.

Yours,

Paul

Hmmmm.....

I think there might be some possibilities for entertainment here, but as far as the examples presented being "reading the mind of others..." well, to these I say, Hoooeeeyyy!

If the kid smiled when he saw Mom pick up a toy, it's more likely that he remembered what Mom did the last she picked up the same toy. If Mom were to walk into the room with a new toy, the kid probably wouldn't have a clue... unless Mom had the same facial expression, vocalization, and body language she did the last time she wanted to play. I'd say the kid learning to read Mom's behavior instead of reading her mind.

How long did it take Pavlov to train the dogs to salivate when they heard the bell?

The next example, the wife picking up the car keys, is even sillier. If picking up the keys makes him think she's leaving, there must be something behind it... like a recent argument. He's not reading her mind... he's just catching on.

The nurse flinching... she knows how a needle feels and she empathizes with the patient. Besides, did she watch the patient's face?

IMHO, I'd say the guys who are doing this research need to talk with a trial lawyer or detective -- or a real estate, insurance, or used car salesman, or a teaching nun, in addition to looking into neurons.

1) Yes, this is about reading and MODELING behavior. If I see you smile when you eat the pie, then I can learn to believe I will like the pie too.

2) Pavlov's assistant put a bell on the cart bringing food to the dogs, and Pavlov noticed that the dogs started to salivate even before they could see or smell the food.

Thanks for the link Jonathan, very interesting.

I have always thought that Theory of Mind would be a nice way to frame mental effects. The fact that someone has detected physiological responses in some neurones that may be linked to that make it all stronger for a presentation.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Magixx

Interesting link. I'll be reading more in depth shortly.....thank you!

I agree with georgefl38 it is more likely a body language.
but the story is interesting, that can be develop to a strong patter.

how about instinct it is more likely mind reading.
example: something bad happened to you, then your mother calls you asking if you are alright. even she didn't exactly know what happened.

After reading the article, as I see it, it allows science to do part of our work for us.
I agree that it is more likely pattern reading of one or another type, facial, body, voice tone, etc. But if the Public GOD SCIENCE wants to call it speciall neurons to let one "mind read" who am I to argue if they will think that is the case, when I perhaps, use a different method.
Let them back us up with small announcements like that, it can be to our advantage, their peers will surely rake them well when it gets submitted to the journals, though maybe that has happened and that is why it is in the "mainstream news". Today "new Scientist and the Edge", tomorrow the STAR!

Just a few things that might help us enjoy the news;

1) by "mind reading" they mean inference about intention from observation.

2) From the story side, imagine what it would mean to have LOTS of those neurons working overtime as someone writes a word or thinks of a color.

3) From other literature, this really could be evidence of a mirror in the mind, ie some hardwired ability to feel with and for our fellow human beings and perhaps other creatures as well. Hope springs eternal.

4) Science is a method of discourse and procedure to accumulate facts. It offers neither solace nor any promises that the theories of today won't be re-evaluated and perhaps replaced in the face of new evidence. It's just our best guess at this time and a way to improve our guesses.

Then there's the other side of this coin - we as performers use this perceptual preconception (reading body language) to our advantage in fooling people. Adults know that certain things are supposed to work in certain ways - the empathic flinch response to the needle insertion in an injection is a good example - when we do needle through arm, the audience flinches because they KNOW that such an action should hurt.

Using these preconceptions and the microcommunications that our faces and bodies are constantly transmitting, we can actually lead the audience "down the garden path" to a completely surprising conclusion and to emotional experiences that they never see coming.

Using this "discovery," which is really nothing more than a validation of observer relation as it's called in psychology, we, as performers, should be able to even better direct our audience's attention and even their thought paths in the manner which will give our performances the biggest impact on them.

So, put on your robes and start singing as I know that I'm preaching to the choir...!

;)

Lee Darrow, C.H.