who says we can't read faces?

Post Reply New Topic

I went to a consultant with my aspie friend. My friend was given a test where he had to look at photographs and say what the emotional state was of the person in the photograph. This was a test to see if he could read faces. The consultant is a wonderful doctor who I have no complaints against whatsoever. My complaint is about this stupid standard test that is often given to people with AS. I do believe that even NTs would have trouble discerning emotional states from a photograph of a face, especially if the photograph was of people displaying facial expressions that can be interpreted various ways. My point is that I think that this test is nonsense.

I do believe that most people, whether NT or Aspie, cannot discern emotion from a photograph. A photograph of a person crying could also mean that person was filled with joy because they had just won the lottery. I think that it is possible to discern emotion, but it is not possible for anyone to do this well from a photograph of a face. I believe that emotion is discerned from facial movement as well as the context of a situation, not fixed imagery. If I had given this consultant the same test, I'm quite sure she would have failed it too. And so, when as aspie is shown such photographs and asked to discern the emotion, and we fail, doctors take THAT as a sign that we can't read faces to know what people's perspectives are.

This is just one way that I think most of the methods for identifying and labelling AS deficits are stupid.

oo, I agree. http://whyfiles.org/209autism/3.html If I were to take a test where I would be given these or similar pictures to analize, I would most certainly fail. However, I do believe that NT's would answer correctly more frequently; Many aspies find it hard to choose between their many options. NT's would probably answer one of the first they think of, while aspies would ponder about what option to choose for a greater amount of time.

I agree that this stuff is not accurate. I think alot of it is guesswork. I looked at one of those online tests where they showed the eyes and really how do you tell because the choices they give are so subjective. Look at something completely out of context and guess - sounds pretty accurate. One thing I noticed though with just looking at the eyes was that was so creepy I had to put my hand on the screen and stop the test. Maybe looking at faces would be less so but still without any indication of the surroundings it doesn't make sense.

But the test is not valid.

The point of the test is to determine whether or not Aspies can read faces from a photograph. The test is supposed to prove that Aspies cannot discern emotion from facial expression. An NT might be better able to discern what his peers would say to label each photographic image, but that doesn't mean he or she is really able to read the face in the photograph any better than an Aspie. It would just indicate that the NT is more aware of what other NTs might say to describe the facial expression portrayed in the photograph. The fact that the NT would know these social codes could be because he or she has more experience socializing and interacting in society so that he or she knows what other NTs would say. The test does not, in itself, prove that Aspies are more inherently deficient at reading faces for emotion or that NTs are any better at it either.

If Aspies DO fail this test more than NTs it might be because we don't have as much experience with following unspoken rules for what a person is supposed to discern from a fixed image of a face, but that does not mean we can't discern emotion from faces in real life.

There are lots of possible variables, and I think the validity of this test is very questionable.

I think that it is very hard for NTs to understand our cognitive experiences because NTs are so mired in a culture that is intolerant of brain diversity. These researches attribute all sorts of meanings to our behavior that is based more on ideological beliefs (e.g. the power of a photographic to depict objective reality..) rather than valid science.

And this is just another example of how empirical science can be wrong about objective reality because it is always, and can never be anything other, than subjective agreement.

I dubious about the photo tests, too. Although the two I've done, I've actually found quite easy. I've done the Baron-Cohen one and an online one. I'm not convinced that these are good tests as, for one, the time taken to get the answer wasn't taken into account. As these tests were multiple-choice, I could logically work it by testing every possible answer, giving it a percentage possibility then going with the most likely.

This technique gets a high score in the tests, but no way is it going to work in real life! As you say, facial expressions in social situations are transient and photographs totally miss the point. I've been told that a fake smile can be distinguished from a sincere one by the fact that a genuine smile causes small wrinkles around the eyes. A fake smile doesn't. I can't detect this in life, but I can easily see it if given limitless time to study a photograph.

Maybe this is a trait that affects a minority of those on the spectrum and has been exaggerated as it gives the impression of being a simple, objective test. And the psychiatrists really go for these either/or easily measurable things. I also wonder about this 'black and white' thinking trait. I don't deny I'm capable of it, but I see many NT's who are also stuck in a black or white thinking mode. Some of these tests are symptoms of it.

As a child I could not read people's faces and only understood tone of voice to a limited level eg if someone shouted at me I knew they were angry. But if someone was angry and I asked them if they were ok and they sarcastically replied 'yeah I'm just fine' I seldom picked that up, I took it as read that they were fine.

Now I can understand tone of voice a lot better as I know what to look for and as well as being able to interpret a wide range of facial expressions.

I still can't read people emotions on their faces. Well why should I?

I think a lot of stuff on many of those psychological tests, or any of those standard tests, are invalid.

About reading faces, though, I come to another example. Say you're watching a crime drama on television, and one of the things that they do to catch a criminal is to bring a person in for a sketch. Now, I can read faces, fairly well, in fact. If someone were to ask me to sketch a face, however, I would be completely lost. I would not be able to give all the little details. That is a lot different from seeing a picture of a face, and this one face has its mouth wide open, and you say ... "Surprised!" Or a smile, and you say ... "Happy!" Obviously, I think people would have to be dumb to not understand what a smile is, for example. These pictures, I believe, do not reflect the subtle social cues they're talking about. Apparently, NTs don't seem to have much of a problem with sketching faces, or at least that's how it's viewed on television. In reality, I don't know how much of that truly goes on.

Also, how valid is this test after you've seen it once and taken it again? If I had this test done in the past, I could easily remember most of the facial expressions and what went with them, especially if I researched it afterward, and then the test would be used later on as an indicator, yet it would all be incorrect, since I have seen the faces and studies them. I do think that many of us may have done that. I know I have just out of curiosity.

In terms of seeing eyes, as one person talked about, this is quite ridiculous. I have never heard that eyes can tell the emotional state of a person. What does his eye do? Does it squint when he's happy? What does it do when he is sad? Many people blink more when they're nervous, and you can't see blinking on a piece of paper. Or am I just missing some sort of hidden social cue that is supposed to exist that I don't see? I have never heard of emotions being told by the eyes before, but faces ... yes.

- Ray M -

It really pisses me off that we have to be labelled as deficient by some test that isn't even valid, and have that a sign that something is "wrong". All that's "wrong" is intolerance for human diversity. The experts, however, need to find a label to describe our brains as deficient. The worst part is that some professional would take such a description verbatim (face blind) and impose that label on autistic people as if we are mentally deficient and use that dynamic to further their own position as an authority on autism, even against our will.

I'm not discounting anyone's face blindness, but really, come on, this test is stupid.

It's like something Nurse Cratchit from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would use.