Body language and ethics

As an offshoot of a course I just did, I am reading the Definitive Guide to Body Language. I have some reservations about some of the explanations as to why we do certain things, but it does contain many interesting observations, and some advice that may prove very useful as well. On several occasions, the authors mention a cause-and-effect loop between a pose or gesture and the emotion behind it, and suggest that you can change how you feel by changing your body language. Research has shown, for example, that smiling can improve your spirits, even if you do it on purpose, without feeling particularly happy. It seems likely that similar relationships will also exist between other emotions and the accompanying body language (frowning, adopting an aggressive or defensive pose, etc.)

Of course, this is just a one-person version of a two- or more-person phenomenon that the authors call "mirroring", and which consists of - usually unconsciously - copying the body language and accompanying emotions of others. Of course, most people would associate this kind of behaviour with fluffy white scatterbrained animals that bleat but I don't mind much when the result is bonding and reinforcement of positive emotions. I am however much less charmed by the flip-side of this coin, namely lynch-mobs and mass paranoia.

But what I am really interested in, is this. If - like most things that have been around a long time - there is an evolutionary reason for this mechanism, then it means that, however much we may like to look down on it, copying the behaviour of others is beneficial in the long run (which is the time-frame within which evolution works). Of course, it is possible that the negative behaviour serves a purpose all of its own, but I suspect that it is just a question of the benefits of positive reinforcement outweighing the negative aspects.

I do see certain similarities with a theory described by Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene", about how a society of "sheep" can tolerate a certain number of wolves, but that if the percentage for whatever reason surpasses a certain threshold, the balance shifts completely to the other (baaaaahhhd) side, and you get a society of wolves, with only a few sheep. All of which brings me to a very convoluted conclusion, namely that what we normally define as "good" and "positive" corresponds, albeit roughly, with "the long run" and "the majority".

Of course, being an individual with only another 30-40 years to go, I would rather be a wolf than a sheep ...