This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hockeystribe, Basementcrew, EdwardM 31.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Evolution"-section of the article, it says "The action of looking away in rejection or disapproval has been traced to many different cultures, who use eye-rolling for similar purposes, suggesting that it is a somewhat innate reaction to unpleasant stimuli", but the referenced Slate article actually suggests the opposite. It says that "In previous centuries, it [the eyeroll] often meant the opposite — a look of passion and lust." If the meaning of a facial expression does change dramatically within a few centuries, it cannot possibly be innate. It heavily suggests that this behaviour is primarily affected by our socialisation, not our genes.

As a sidenote: The wikipedia article itself also mentions this changed meaning in the "History"-section. While informing the reader that the evolutionary psychology theory exists is absolutely reasonable in the name of objectivity, it still feels kind of weird to read an article that directly contradicts itself, unless it mentions that the evolutionary theory is disputed. The phrasing "There has been much speculation about the fact that eye-rolling is an evolutionary trait of women" is too ambigous in my opinion — while "speculation" may imply that it's not an universally accepted well-established scientific theory, "the fact that" implies that it's, in fact, a fact. A better phrasing would be "There has been much speculation whether eye-rolling is an evolutionary trait of women", and it also wouldn't hurt to explicitly mention that the theory (and evolutionary psychology in general) is controversial.

I don't want to make any changes off my own bat though, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the wording. 37.201.168.170 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not showing eye rolling. Not the gesture being discussed at least Inayity (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]