Martial CultureMoved by Reason

According to this study, it seems that Caucasoids and Mongoloids don’t examine faces the same way.

Note that this article uses the term “Caucasian” which I assume, based on context, that they are referring to what many people call Caucasoids (to avoid confusion). I.e., roughly the people in Europe, Western Asia, North Africa, and India. (I.e., they are not just referring to people of Caucasia — not just referring to the Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijani, Ossetians, Kurds, Iranians, Chechens, Abkhaz, Adygei, etc.)

Also, in the article they used the term “Asian”, which I assume should be read as “Mongoloid”. I.e., roughly East Asians.

Caucasians and Asians don’t examine faces in the same way, according to new research. PhD student Caroline Blais, of the Université de Montréal Department of Psychology, has published two studies on the subject: one in Current Biology and the other in PLoS One.

Previous studies have shown that people collect information by mostly studying the eyes as well as the mouth of a face. “The problem is that these studies always used Caucasian test subjects,” says Blais.

Questioning the universality of facial recognition began after studies showed that Asians study faces in an overall fashion, while Caucasians break down faces into distinct parts.
[...]
Caucasian and Asian subjects excelled at recognizing someone of their race, yet both had the same level of difficulty in identifying someone of another ethnic group. According to Blais, this says more about the analytical approach of Caucasians and the holistic approach of Asians.

In a second experiment, test subjects had to pinpoint an emotion: surprise, fear, disgust or joy. Asians mostly focused on the eyes and not enough on the mouth, which meant some emotions were wrongly identified.

“Asians had particular problems with negative emotions. They confused fear and surprise as well as disgust and anger,” says Blais. “This is because they avoided looking at the mouth which provides a lot of information about these emotions.”

(Emphasis mine.)

(Link)

A study that is relevant if you are a teacher. But also interesting from a psychological point-of-view. That different personality types have different motivations for doing things.

Reading this I think I’m what they are describing as “excellence type”, so let my try to share my perspective. While it is not proof of anything (since the sample size is too small and may not be representative). It does offer an additional point-of-view. (Note in my comments below I’m assuming that my experiences are representative of all “excellence types”. I could be wrong. But that’s how the comments are written.)

Those who value excellence and hard work generally do better than others on specific tasks when they are reminded of those values. But when a task is presented as fun, researchers report, the same individuals often will do worse than those who say they are less motivated to achieve.

I’d say it is because the “excellence types” don’t really care when it is presented as being fun (since to them when they hear “for fun” that means “it doesn’t matter“), so it doesn’t really try. They are not winning anything or beating anyone, so who cares?! There’s no thrill in it.

The findings suggest that two students may respond quite differently to a teacher’s exhortation that they strive for excellence [...]

One may be spurred to try harder, while another could become less motivated.

The study also suggests that those who are “chronically uninterested in achievement” are not operating out of a desire to do badly [...] Their differing responses simply may reflect the fact that they have different goals.

Could the “fun type” be lazy perhaps?

“The competitive mindset, the achievement mindset becomes a huge de-motivator for those who don’t necessarily value excellence as much as they value their well-being,” [...] “Perhaps the reason they don’t care to do well is because they want to do something else; they want to enjoy themselves — which is not a bad goal,” [...]
[...]
The researchers found that those with high achievement motivation did better on a task when they also were exposed to subconscious “priming” (the flash of a word on a computer screen, for example, that appeared too briefly to be consciously noticed) that related to winning, mastery or excellence. Those with low achievement motivation did worse under the same conditions.

That’s actually a good description of it, I think. The “excellence types” want to win and beat everyone else.

Similarly, when given a choice, those with high achievement motivation were more likely to resume an interrupted task, such as a word-search puzzle, which they were told tested their verbal reasoning ability, than their peers, who were more likely to switch to a task perceived as fun.

But in a final study the researchers found that those with high achievement motivation actually did worse on a word-search puzzle when they were told the exercise was fun and they had been exposed to achievement primes, such as the words “excel,” “compete” or “dominate.” Their counterparts, who were not very motivated to achieve, did better under the same conditions.

Again I’d say it is because “excellence types” just don’t care in this situation, so they don’t bother really trying. (I.e., it doesn’t matter, so who cares.)

These finding suggest that achievement primes inhibit the desire to have fun in those who are motivated to achieve, the authors wrote. But in people who lack achievement motivation, the same cues seem to enhance their desire — and ability — to perform a task seen as fun.

I think they are misunderstanding “excellence types”. When “excellence types” hear the phrase “for fun“, they think, “it doesn’t matter“. But “excellence types” derive fun from competition and winning.

“It’s not that those with high achievement motivation always perform better,” Albarracín said. “You can also get the low achievement motivation folks to perform better than the highs when you present a task as enjoyable and fun.”

(Link)