1) Face
I found this idea really interesting:
“As with expression, patterns of gaze can vary depending upon culture or subculture. For example, lack of sustained mutual gaze might be interpreted as indifference or rudeness by an American person and as politeness by a Japanese person.”
This suggests that interpretations of facial expressions are not necessary universal and will to a certain extent be influenced by the culture that you grow up in. This is similar to the theory in linguistics of Universal Grammar which explains that all humans are born with the ability to pronounce the sounds of every world language, but those not used in one’s native language will quickly be forgotten as they will not be needed. However, I was always under the impression that body movements, including facial expressions, were a way to transcend a language barrier because it is a “language” that is universally understood. Given that this may not be the case, target audience should have influence over the design of character mannerisms. This then begs the question, what is unique to those characters that are part of games that transcend cultural boundaries (if there are any that really do so)?
2) Eliza Effect
This article discusses the precursor to the now very dominant component of computer science: artificial intelligence. Reading about the Eliza Effect and the “yes-no therapy” experiment, I immediately thought to myself, “why are we so ready to except AI as human interaction?” Yes it is true, as the author mentioned, that eventually the facade breaks down and reveals its limitations but up until that point, most humans are willing to temporarily accept these simulations as reality. This is especially apparent in video games across the board, and in particular, “The Sims” series comes to mind. I will admit I have played they games to death and have found all of their limitations but I still play on. And it seems that the more and more realistic they get, the more popular they become. Why are we so desperate to make the virtual world a mirror of our own?
3) Hills Like White Elephants
It is amazing how much Hemingway is able to convey about the characters (and their relationship) through very simple descriptions and lots of dialogue. I was especially intrigued with the dichotomy of describing the two characters as “man” and “girl”, and the adult situation they are in. That brief description in the context of the dialogue was enough to discern that the relationship they share is an inappropriate one – he may be a good deal older than she is, they are constantly moving from place to place to be together, he clearly has a power over her that makes her feel like she would do anything to make him happy. However, it is also clear that the man feels remorse about having this dominance in their relationship and clearly doesn’t want to lose her by forcing her to do something she would regret. Hemingway does a really good job of revealing information discretely without explaining the circumstance explicitly but describing enough for the reader to understand what is going on.
