What Does Reading Facial Expressions Really Mean?

[Cyrano]

re the Spock eyebrow thing, I'd go for quizzical puzzlement ? Am I wrong ?

Not always. He often used it as the expression equivalent of "Oh, really?" usually just before uncorking a zinger on Kirk or McCoy. He would sometimes also use it to express concern, most often with Mr. Scott - more precisely, with what Scotty was doing at the time, usually in a crisis situation. With Spock, it is not just the expression - it's his tone of voice. Think of the time in "Journey to Babel" when he and Sarek were doing a double act on Amanda, or the time in "The Tholian Web" when he was in command and watching the Tholians begin construction of their web. Same eyebrow, very different vocal inflections.

Even after decades of practicing reading expressions - I now do okay on the gross expressions, but I still can't pick up on the subtle ones consistently - I still rely far more on listening to the vocal inflections to get an idea of what is going on behind the other person's face.

 

[Cyrano]

Reading facial expressions is nonsense: reason #1. Up until recently, only Ancient Greek and Roman males removed facial hair. How did people read facial expressions of men with hair covering their faces? #2. People in many cultures present a stone cold expressionless face in public. Can you accurately "read" people from other cultures? No. #3. Communication styles are based on social status; what a rich person can do with their face and body language is different than what a poor person is "allowed" to do. #4. Why is verbal language so extremely important, and then suddenly, you can't use it to ASK SOMEONE what they mean or what mood they're in? It's silly!

It is not entirely silly. My normal friends, who patiently worked with me and booted me in the butt for a number of years to assist me in learning to recognize facial expressions, kept telling me, "Don't watch the mouth. Watch the eyes. The eyes for the different expressions are very different, and if you can learn to recognize the differences, you will be able to pick up on things, even with a culture like the Japanese who are schooled from birth to keep a blank face in many social situations, especially when they are the subordinate in the situation.

 

[ImAnAspie]

This almost got me into big trouble not long ago. I was in a fairly tough pub and some guys started talking to me. I can small talk for a very limited time (~ 1 minute or so) but as I looked up at the fellow who was talking to me (can't stand prolonged eye contact), I don't know if I did something wrong or not but his expression changed very noticeably and I don't know what his expression meant or why he made it. All I know is something changed and I didn't know what or why. I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could.

 

[Loomis]

This almost got me into big trouble not long ago. I was in a fairly tough pub and some guys started talking to me. I can small talk for a very limited time (~ 1 minute or so) but as I looked up at the fellow who was talking to me (can't stand prolonged eye contact), I don't know if I did something wrong or not but his expression changed very noticeably and I don't know what his expression meant or why he made it. All I know is something changed and I didn't know what or why. I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could.

Sounds to me like you read his expression quite well. What you read on his face was: "I am in danger."

 

[ImAnAspie]

Sounds to me like you read his expression quite well. What you read on his face was: "I am in danger."

No. I could see no meaning in his expression. It was the sudden change that worried me. For all I know, the expression might have meant "What an ugly dude!" I still haven't worked it out. I don't think things got heavy or threatening. It was just that I couldn't understand the situation.

 

[Loomis]

No. I could see no meaning in his expression. It was the sudden change that worried me. For all I know, the expression might have meant "What an ugly dude!" I still haven't worked it out. I don't think things got heavy or threatening. It was just that I couldn't understand the situation.

This almost got me into big trouble not long ago. I was in a fairly tough pub and some guys started talking to me... I don't know if I did something wrong or not but his expression changed very noticeably and I don't know what his expression meant or why he made it. All I know is something changed and I didn't know what or why. I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could.

I guess when you said "This almost got me into big trouble" and "I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could" it suggested to me that you sensed danger.

Anyway I understand what it is like to be confused about people's intentions and I suppose having this happen in a tough bar would be discomfiting.

 

[ImAnAspie]

I guess when you said "This almost got me into big trouble" and "I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could" it suggested to me that you sensed danger.

Anyway I understand what it is like to be confused about people's intentions and I suppose having this happen in a tough bar would be discomfiting.

I don't trust any person but especially in such a place.

Conversely, I don't trust people who be nice to me (which is a rarity). I think humans are only nice to you if it doesn't cost them anything or they can gain from it!

 

[Autism]

This almost got me into big trouble not long ago. I was in a fairly tough pub and some guys started talking to me. I can small talk for a very limited time (~ 1 minute or so) but as I looked up at the fellow who was talking to me (can't stand prolonged eye contact), I don't know if I did something wrong or not but his expression changed very noticeably and I don't know what his expression meant or why he made it. All I know is something changed and I didn't know what or why. I got very uncomfortable and got out of the situation as fast as I could.

Would have done the same thing. That scares me just reading about it. Is that an Aspie trait?

 

[Keith]

I got 22/36 on the test.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

You might find the show "Lie to Me" really interesting; while the show itself is fictional, the science of facial expressions is true. I believe it was Haggard and Isaacs who are credited with first exploring this topic; it's been a while since I read about the studies done on it, but from what I can remember, they took every possible combination of facial muscles and, through stimulating muscle combinations and taking these studies to isolated communities, identified some 1,000 or so (if I remember correctly) muscle combinations that have meaning, as well as what that meaning would be. There are only a handful of professionals who are actually qualified to use these studies in research (by which I mean, reading the face for a qualitative study etc), but it's a science that most people have some comprehension of naturally. These muscle combinations are consistent across cultures and communities regardless of location and exposure. There's a more thorough summary in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," (and I think Paul Ekman has several books on the subject that may be fairly accessible) but I really enjoyed obsessing over "Lie To Me" for a while in high school. I think I'm relatively low on the spectrum, so I can't say with certainty that your experience will be the same as mine, but after cramming episodes of "Lie to Me" I had a much stronger understanding of facial expressions, and with practice I think that, depending on the situation, I may read almost as well as a neurotypical person (and in certain situations, perhaps even better, simply because in the situations I'm referring to, I've had more exposure than most NT's and my understanding is much more rational, rather than relying on instinct). Now, when I see someone smile, I look to see if the corners of their eyes are crinkling with the smile to determine whether the smile is real, and similar cues for other emotions. I guess what I'm saying is, just because it doesn't come naturally to us doesn't mean it's beyond us; where there's a science, there's rationality, and where there's rationality, there is the potential to learn; by studying potential expressions, you may be able to at least improve your abilities, even if it will never be as natural or accurate as you'd like.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

Oh, for sure... the fact that it was a multiple choice does make it easier. In real life there's a bigger spectrum of choices.

Not sure if "how well one takes tests" actually is the case. Even on averages; I should've scored at least 9 correct out of 36. I couldn't even manage that. For me pretty much all were a gamble.

However, if you were to say "I know a few expressions" that would make eliminating a few a lot easier. If you have; Surprise, Anger, Sadness and Contemplating as the 4 choices on such a test, and you know 3 of those... or even 2, it does increase the chances to get the right one. Though if you have no clue about any of these 4, it's still a gamble. Knowing expressions that are asked on these tests, might me akin to having studied for said exam.

I did pretty well (28 right), but I think it was an elimination by general undertone, not by a selection I knew. Like, I know that eyes squinting a bit is generally a bad thing leaning towards aggression (I don't know whether I know that from observations, or because in books someone who's angry is described as squinting or some such before saying something cruel), so for anything where the whole eye was squinting closed I knew it had to be bad; if options were then "anger" "flirtatious" "friendly" and "sad," "anger" is the only bad leaning towards aggression. For most images, my guess was in the general ballpark and then I could narrow it down by what was most similar (like, I would think something was scared because eyebrows were upwards in the middle, but sad was the closest option). So perhaps if you can identify specific tendencies that go together (eyebrows up as one category to work within, eyebrows furrowed as another category to work within, and so forth) you can get something of a foundation to work with? That is, if you want to improve your abilities, I don't know if that's an interest to you at all

 

[LittleFiddle05]

Facial expressions is one of the reasons I initially ruled out having Asperger's Disorder when I learned about it 4.5 years ago.

I have some trouble here and there understanding sarcasm and did have quite some difficulty with idioms growing up. For example, I only learned what "beating around the bush" and "pot calling the kettle black" meant after hearing them several times with the type of conversation they were used in. I initially pictured someone beating a bush with a stick, and I still really don't know what hypocrisy has to do with pots and kettles.

(Sorry I'm replying to so many comments in this one, I guess facial expression and similar topics have been a bit of a special interest for me)

For sayings like "beating around the bush" and "pot calling the kettle black," I have to identify where the expression came from and visualize the saying itself, rather than just taking the meaning as it is. Luckily for me, my mom always loved the history behind sayings like that, so if I didn't understand something, she didn't just tell me what it meant; she told me why it meant that. As for "pot calling the kettle black," recall that cooking used to be done over an actual fire; if you've ever put a pot on a fire, you know that the entire outside of the pot quickly becomes black from the fire. The same happens if you put a kettle on the fire; it becomes sooty and black. So "the pot calling the kettle black" is like if a pot and a kettle have both been heated over a fire, so they're both covered in soot and blackened, and the pot then tries to insult the kettle for being blackened. The kettle is blackened, but so is the pot, making the pot a hypocrite. Perhaps that helps? Sorry, this is my idea of fun...

 

[KassieMac]

Facial expressions is one of the reasons I initially ruled out having Asperger's Disorder when I learned about it 4.5 years ago.

I have some trouble here and there understanding sarcasm and did have quite some difficulty with idioms growing up. For example, I only learned what "beating around the bush" and "pot calling the kettle black" meant after hearing them several times with the type of conversation they were used in. I initially pictured someone beating a bush with a stick, and I still really don't know what hypocrisy has to do with pots and kettles.

The point of that last one is that the pot & the kettle are both black, but the pot denies its own color in using 'black' as an insult to the kettle. It's basically trying to insult someone with a feature that one shares, but won't admit to. And yes, it's a very old saying, confused by the fact that these things come in all colors now. Hope that helps.

 

[KassieMac]

(Sorry I'm replying to so many comments in this one, I guess facial expression and similar topics have been a bit of a special interest for me)

For sayings like "beating around the bush" and "pot calling the kettle black," I have to identify where the expression came from and visualize the saying itself, rather than just taking the meaning as it is. Luckily for me, my mom always loved the history behind sayings like that, so if I didn't understand something, she didn't just tell me what it meant; she told me why it meant that. As for "pot calling the kettle black," recall that cooking used to be done over an actual fire; if you've ever put a pot on a fire, you know that the entire outside of the pot quickly becomes black from the fire. The same happens if you put a kettle on the fire; it becomes sooty and black. So "the pot calling the kettle black" is like if a pot and a kettle have both been heated over a fire, so they're both covered in soot and blackened, and the pot then tries to insult the kettle for being blackened. The kettle is blackened, but so is the pot, making the pot a hypocrite. Perhaps that helps? Sorry, this is my idea of fun...

Hi!

Sorry, I hadn't finished the thread, so I didn't realize you'd already answered this one ... besides your answer is better than mine. I'm also fascinated by the origins of sayings, which is why it annoyed me so when I lived in a region where people said "could care less" when they meant "couldn't care less". They would also say "same difference", which just doesn't make sense. We could start a whole new thread on this, wouldn't it be fun!

Kassie

 

[KassieMac]

You might find the show "Lie to Me" really interesting; while the show itself is fictional, the science of facial expressions is true. I believe it was Haggard and Isaacs who are credited with first exploring this topic; it's been a while since I read about the studies done on it, but from what I can remember, they took every possible combination of facial muscles and, through stimulating muscle combinations and taking these studies to isolated communities, identified some 1,000 or so (if I remember correctly) muscle combinations that have meaning, as well as what that meaning would be. There are only a handful of professionals who are actually qualified to use these studies in research (by which I mean, reading the face for a qualitative study etc), but it's a science that most people have some comprehension of naturally. These muscle combinations are consistent across cultures and communities regardless of location and exposure. There's a more thorough summary in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," (and I think Paul Ekman has several books on the subject that may be fairly accessible) but I really enjoyed obsessing over "Lie To Me" for a while in high school. I think I'm relatively low on the spectrum, so I can't say with certainty that your experience will be the same as mine, but after cramming episodes of "Lie to Me" I had a much stronger understanding of facial expressions, and with practice I think that, depending on the situation, I may read almost as well as a neurotypical person (and in certain situations, perhaps even better, simply because in the situations I'm referring to, I've had more exposure than most NT's and my understanding is much more rational, rather than relying on instinct). Now, when I see someone smile, I look to see if the corners of their eyes are crinkling with the smile to determine whether the smile is real, and similar cues for other emotions. I guess what I'm saying is, just because it doesn't come naturally to us doesn't mean it's beyond us; where there's a science, there's rationality, and where there's rationality, there is the potential to learn; by studying potential expressions, you may be able to at least improve your abilities, even if it will never be as natural or accurate as you'd like.

Lie To Me was specifically based on Dr Paul Ekman, who I understand started a business consulting with his skills, and also teaches seminars to learn them. I haven't seen nearly enough episodes ... but I'm pretty sure they're on Netflix.

 

[Judge]

I've probably posted this before, but given so many variables associated with facial recognition I can't help but label it as a "pseudo-science" of sorts.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

I've probably posted this before, but given so many variables associated with facial recognition I can't help but label it as a "pseudo-science" of sorts.

I disagree with you completely. I don't mean this to sound argumentative, but I'm sincerely curious: what is your familiarity with the method of the studies done? Personally, I think when you can identify x number of muscles in the face, then you find that z number of expressions are recognized universally (with the exception of persons with autism spectrum disorders), that's not just a misinterpretation of causation vs correlation, or any similarly false conclusion. Evolutionally, it makes sense that there would be an instinctive way to communicate, just as language is, to a degree, innate (by which I mean, while it /is/ learned, studies of children raised without language - for example, deaf children brought together by a sort of exile, with no established sign language for them to learn - will create a language themselves; if this language is developed from a young enough age, they will naturally develop complex grammar rules. Similarly, the children raised with a broken language - for example, children of slaves that lack a common language, who communicate using only what common words they could find and learn to recognize, but lacking in any sort of grammar, will naturally create a complex grammar to tie together the broken words). Body language is a part of nature; I don't remember the name of the man who came to tame previously-abused horses not by re-breaking them, but by studying their body language and immitating it... a tilted head, a glance from the side of the face rather than dead-on, etc, would lead the otherwise-uncontrollable horse to gradually approach calmly. If there is an innate body language within animals, then it seems arrogant for us to then assume that just because we on the autism spectrum lack the instinct to read facial expressions, therefore there must not be any true innate fact behind them. I'm sorry, my argument is somewhat garbled, I'm tired and have already had quite a long week... but my point is, I personally believe that dismissing studies that have been carried out regarding facial expressions and body language, you're more likely looking for an excuse for why it doesn't come naturally to you, not considering the actual research and method behind the study. Any science has countless variables - a temperature difference of one degree can make all the difference, being one millimeter off in a measurement can throw a whole experiment, but simply because there are so many possible muscle combinations, there are "too many variables" for there to be a real science behind the face? Unless you also believe that linguistics is not a real science, because there are too many grammar rules or aspects of brain involvement for it to be legitimately understood...

 

[LittleFiddle05]

Hi!

Sorry, I hadn't finished the thread, so I didn't realize you'd already answered this one ... besides your answer is better than mine. I'm also fascinated by the origins of sayings, which is why it annoyed me so when I lived in a region where people said "could care less" when they meant "couldn't care less". They would also say "same difference", which just doesn't make sense. We could start a whole new thread on this, wouldn't it be fun!

Kassie

No worries! I'd enjoy such a thread for sure! And I know what you mean about people expressing a saying wrong... for a while I thought I had an explanation for "same difference," I think I rationalized it as being an abbreviation for "the two are the same, despite the difference" - as if the difference between the two is irrelevant. I think it would make more sense as some sort of equation where the actions get skipped over in colloquializing... "similarity (same) cancels out difference" or some such, if there's any sort of marking that could represent "cancels out"...Idk I remember spending way too much time thinking up a way to explain it in middle school because I heard it so often. "could care less" always drove me CRAZY though, because eliminating the "not" completely reverses the meaning and then it just sounds mean... Okay yeah I think we need a thread for this, if you haven't already made one?

 

[Judge]

I should have phrased that not in terms of facial recognition, but rather the interpretation of facial expressions. That it's arguable that any perceived standard of facial expressions can hold up to real scrutiny across a broad spectrum. That one may have an intentional or unintentional disconnect between what they are thinking and what their face appears to indicate.

Facial recognition on the other hand is another matter especially given certain court rulings.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

I should have phrased that not in terms of facial recognition, but rather the interpretation of facial expressions. That it's arguable that any perceived standard of facial expressions can hold up to real scrutiny across a broad spectrum. Facial recognition is another matter especially given certain court rulings.

I'm sorry, I'm confused - I thought I was talking about facial expressions, I don't think anything I said had to do with facial recognition?? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you think i'm talking about recognizing people, while I'm talking about reading their facial expressions...