Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: can you see through the windows to the soul?

here's a thing to try... an on line quiz that tracks your ability to judge people's emotions just based on their eyes. if you've read the book blink, you know that micro-movements of the muscles in our face are pretty much hard-wired when we experience certain emotions. we make certain motions that betray our thoughts and feelings even when we don't mean to. and so tight is the bond between our feelings and our physical expression of those feelings that even making the faces associated with certain moods or states of mind can be enough to trigger those same states. so try to smile a lot.

i'm going to put a page break here so that i can discuss my results without providing spoilers. feel free to join me after the break when you've done the test.




ok, so i scored a 21. that's not great. that's actually below the threshold of 22, the low water mark of being able to reliably interpret people's emotions. in general, i fared better with moods that were negative. i was successfully able to identify things like dubiousness, hostility, nervousness and distrust. but i mistook things like playfulness or fantasizing for boredom. i was also weak on recognising threats. i couldn't correctly identify expressions of accusation or insistence, mistaking them for disappointment [note: i read that as disappointment in me, not disappointment in the world] or relaxation. so as a baseline, i struggle with identifying what people are thinking. i cannot read the micro-codes.

but what i found more interesting were the photos where i had a hard time making a choice because none of the options seemed to jive with my interpretation of the expression.

let's start with face #1 ::

correct answer: playful
choices: playful, comforting, irritated, bored
my choice: irritated

but what i really thought was... mocking or cruel. to me, that expression is the face of the schoolyard bully. i got annoyed right off the top because i was convinced that i knew what the expression was, but saw no corresponding answer. so i chose the closest one, which was the only one that had a negative connotation.

or we can look at the second last face ::

correct answer: nervous
choices: puzzled, nervous, insisting, contemplative
my choice: nervous

but what i really thought was... resentful. i definitely got the sense of unease, but my mind perceived something accusatory in her expression. i felt strongly that, while 'nervous' was the only acceptable answer, it was inadequate.

and the very last one ::

correct answer: suspicious
choices: ashamed, nervous, suspicious, indecisive
my choice: suspicious

but what i really thought was... contemptuous. this was something similar to the last one, where i picked the most negative one i could simply because nothing seemed negative enough to match the expression.

so the bottom line is that i would have done even worse if the quiz hadn't restricted me to certain answers.

this is a piece of internet frivolity, in that it doesn't obviously point to anything being terribly wrong, but it is illustrative of the sort of invisible challenges that a person who has a mental disorder [yes, although i don't talk about it in detail, i do, which is partly what spurred my interest in the subject] can face. to a very great extent, we rely on our judgments about other people to determine our own actions [whether we like to admit it or not]. going through life unable to interpret the emotions of those around us, leaves the mentally disordered in a precarious position. it's like being illiterate about other people. we can't act appropriately, because we don't know what the messages mean. as a result, life can be frightening or confusing, because things that are clear to most people [and most people score higher than i did] are opaque to those whose brains distort what their eyes see.

that's not to say that faring poorly on the test is an automatic indicator of a mental disorder. people who are disinterested or insensitive won't do well either. but there is evidence to show that those with mental disorders have an inability to "read" others that interferes with their ability to interact with them. the moist poignant examples of this are people with autism spectrum disorders, who struggle to place human actions in context, often becoming distracted by extraneous objects, not realising what information human expressions- aside from their words- are trying to convey.

[note :: i'm avoiding an obvious point of contention with this study, which is that the results could be tainted by the viewers impressions of caucasians, since all the faces are clearly caucasian. but i appreciate the fact that all the faces are from a single race, that of the majority in canada and the plurality in the united states, so that issues of mood recognition don't become confused with issues of racism. i'd love to try the same exercise with all southeast asian, all hispanic or all african faces.]

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
Actually, I do believe that all of those faces are from celebrities, in some fashion or other, one of which I'm pretty certain is Aleister Crowley. Overall, I score 25, but that's mostly because I second-guessed myself. I find that sort of quizz about as accurate to determine someone's mood as IQ tests are at determining intelligence. While there certainly are several indicators of emotional states in the eyes and surrounding facial landscape, the whole face, the demeanor in general will provide a more complete assessment of their current and short term moods.
Kate MacDonald said…
Interesting that you thought it was celebrities, but no, the photos were developed to be a set of "generic" faces by a professor at Cambridge.

Completely agree with you on the question of eyes seen out of context, but I find that my results are reasonably accurate- I do have difficulty reading people's emotions and identifying reactions.

The average score on this is apparently 26, although I'm not clear on whether that was because most people scored around a 26, or that scores were all over the place and that just happened to be the number at the centre of it all.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

making faces :: i could maybe not buy this one thing

i've been into makeup on some level for a long time- much longer than i've been writing about it, for certain. even as a young woman, i loved the feeling of i got from applying a deep-hued lipstick and some mascara. it took years for me to figure out eyeshadow, and even longer for me to appreciate blush. but at this point, i think we can agree that i'm pretty much into the whole gamut. [except liquid and super-matte lipsticks, and most very sparkly eyeshadows. but that's because they're painful for me to wear.]

the thing about spending a long time collecting and holding onto just about everything is that you accumulate quite a stash. lately, i'm trying to force myself to think about what i already have before laying down money for something new. most recently, i found myself drawn to the modern renaissance palette from anastasia. me and a lot of people. by the time i started thinking about it, it was already sold out in my local sephora and online. i signed up…

...and my cup size is none of your damn business

this story, about a man who got a female coworker to trade email accounts with him for two weeks to see if he could see a difference in customer reactions, has been making the rounds on social media and beyond in the last week or so. earlier today, i posted it on my personal facebook page about it, and realised that i had a lot more that i wanted to share than made sense for a facebook post. so i've come here to rant.

a couple of things to start:

1. i've had some really good job experiences in my life. i'm both lucky and unlucky that the best of them came early on, but even in more recent years, i worked at a couple of places that treated workers, all workers, with respect. that respect can be expressed in different ways, but believe me, you know it when it's there. so i want to make it clear that #notallworkplaces fit the pattern i'm about to describe.

2. i am really, really, really grateful to martin r. schneider, who thought up and did this experiment, not just …