Is smiling with grill the evolvement of primeval snarling ?

This thought just came up to my mind.
When two people smile at each other with showing their teeth, is it a presentation of strength, like our animalistc ancestors did ?
Could the stimulus to lift the cheeks be a warning, saying "be careful, don't attack me, i can bite you" ?
Like showing the borders of your territory. The rest of beast in us ?

reply to post by icepack


Smiling is a primate gesture.

Maybe is splintered off from grimace/snarl(like in canines) gesture.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

smiling is sympathetic for humans, but in the animal world, it is always something bad.

Not anymore, the same way words over time change to different meanings i.e Fag/smoke

the way we interpret those non-verbal forms of communication has also changed.
The smile now has a 'friendly' connotation to it rather than aggressive.

reply to post by yourmaker

interesting. i wonder, when was the first time a snarl was perceived as a smile ? and did this incident have a happy ending ?

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by yourmaker

 

interesting. i wonder, when was the first time a snarl was perceived as a smile ? and did this incident have a happy ending ?

Parents and young children rough-housing (play fighting) surely generated a 'fun snarl.' This probably went on all the time, partly as a means of 'practice' for the young children.

On the other hand, laughter is a reflex and nearly impossible to do without showing your teeth & a smile. So, when did laughter begin? Is the smile an offshoot from laughter or grimace? Hmmm...

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. People smile when they are happy or find something amusing. It has absolutely nothing to do with aggression or displaying dominance. If anything, smiling makes people less apprehensive in social situations and more open to communicating, which certainly wouldn't be the case if it were linked to aggression.

TL;DR - There isn't always a biological/"Darwinian" explanation for everything. Sometimes it just 'is what it is'.

Originally posted by Xaphan
It has absolutely nothing to do with aggression or displaying dominance.

In primates it does, and we are primates.

If anything, smiling makes people less apprehensive in social situations and more open to communicating, which certainly wouldn't be the case if it were linked to aggression.

Yes, that's the evolutionary change OP is inferring to.

Originally posted by Xaphan
This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. People smile when they are happy or find something amusing. It has absolutely nothing to do with aggression or displaying dominance. If anything, smiling makes people less apprehensive in social situations and more open to communicating, which certainly wouldn't be the case if it were linked to aggression.

TL;DR - There isn't always a biological/"Darwinian" explanation for everything. Sometimes it just 'is what it is'.

I don't think it's absurd at all.... we are animals just like all the rest. In almost all cases imaginable presenting ones open mouth and teeth is a sign of aggression.

Smiling and laughing IS a biological act. NOT a learned, cultural act. Little babies that have no idea what they are doing smile when happy and cry when sad. It's biological, therefore there has to be some biological evolution of the act of smiling.

I think the person that said it evolved from "play fighting" is probably right. When rough housing with friends and family primates would most definitely have been growling and hissing like all animals, and even modern humans do (grunts, yells, moans, etc when fighting or going through extreme physical exertion)

Because the emotion was positive instead of negative, the act of smiling evolved to be different then growling with exposed teeth. Laughter and smiling put people at ease, so evolving to let others know you aren't a threat or there for anything nefarious would have been a good thing.

Try smiling at some wild animals and i bet they won't think you are expressing positive happy thoughts.

EDIT: Forgot to say S&F OP, cool thread I like thinking about things like this.

One thing I learned in Malaysia is that if you show your teeth to the monkeys, they will chase you angrily for several blocks. At which point, you had better run fast and not trip.

Originally posted by allenidaho
One thing I learned in Malaysia is that if you show your teeth to the monkeys, they will chase you angrily for several blocks. At which point, you had better run fast and not trip.

I figured as much! I wouldn't wan't to mess with angry monkeys. Baboons, whatever they are.

This made me think of a question along the same lines of the OP's, why do Humans punch when fighting and monkeys don't? I've seen a lot of monkey fight vids and it seems like they just grab each other, and bite each other. And cackle. I'd imagine those crazy-strong monkeys would have an insane right hook and could KO each other with ease.

Mules and the like kick, which is basically punching with your feet, so it's not like it's a move only us Humans learned because of our intelligence.

I really want to see monkey boxing.

reply to post by James1982


Monkeys are not hominids.

They are not even great apes.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by James1982

 

Monkeys are not hominids.

They are not even great apes.

edit on 9-11-2012 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

I'm using the term monkey in very general terms. I don't see how that distinction is relevant to the subject.

reply to post by James1982


Look at when a wolf snarls. When a monkey grimaces does it mean a threat like the wolf?


Look at my big sharp teeth I will bite if provoked. A lot of mammals warn that way.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


I'm not really sure what we are arguing about as I agree with everything you have said in this thread, and it doesn't appear anything I've posted contradicts anything you've posted. Unless it's just that I mistakenly said Monkey instead of some other name that's more accurate. I think if you went up to most people on the street and showed them pictures of various types of primates most people would refer to them all as monkeys. Just a general term is all, I know it's now scientifically accurate but it is what it is.

Originally posted by James1982
Smiling and laughing IS a biological act. NOT a learned, cultural act.

Is it though? Laughter is caused by humour, and humour is a learned cultural act. Humour differs between cultures. Some cultures have more humour than others, and some have hardly any at all. Body language is usually cultural.

reply to post by Xaphan


Babies sure smile a lot for not understanding any of the jokes people tell

Smiling comes from feeling content, happy, joyful, etc as well as from humor. And not all humor is human generated. My cat was climbing around the table and couch at my house trying to look cute and get me to pet him. He fell off the table when he tried to jump on it, sat there for a second, looked at me, and then ran off. I started laughing hysterically as it seemed my cat was horribly embarrassed about falling off the table.

I find that funny because I understand the concept of of being embarrassed, which babies probably don't, but things can still be funny to someone without having understanding about what's going on. I'm sure babies find some really stupid stuff funny and laugh about it.

Like I said babies smile when happy and cry when sad. That's not a learned behavior I don't think. They come crying out of the womb (well... you know what I mean) and shortly after begin smiling. While one could argue that the baby saw other people smiling and therefore began doing it itself, but I don't buy that. How would a baby understand the concept of relating being happy (a feeling) to a facial expression. It's just natural. And we can be sure crying is NOT learned, so it stands to reason that the things done when happy aren't learned either.

reply to post by new_here

maybe it is the same principles with animals and humans, but it is more evolved with humans. "something" is unfolding in form of the creation.

reply to post by Xaphan

Sometimes it just 'is what it is'.

if that is enough for you, ok.