Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/ei_quiz

I'm interested to see what scores people got, and whether they thought it took them a long or short time to respond.

I got a 13/20. I answered fairly quickly though, and probably could have figured them out if I'd taken more time. I think answering quickly is part of the point. In real life, you have to judge these sorts of reaction in just a moment.

I took a much better (imo) version of this quiz a month or two ago. A few things I liked better were that the explanations weren't given until I'd taken the whole quiz. If I'd read the results for each image as I went, it would have been educating me along the way for what keys the quiz makers used. By doing this, I feel the quiz skews the results. I didn't end up reading the results because of that.

Additionally, I felt these faces were too extreme. Most were forced, and it was obvious. The actor was chosen to exhibit specific facial indicators, rather than a natural reaction. The previous quiz I took had much more subtle, natural images. Down-turned eyes in a slack face, a smile with fully open eyes. It looked more organic. I was able to rely on real-life experiences to make my guesses.

As a final note, this was probably the funniest image: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/ ... kAFF_1.jpg

I'm 98% sure that I don't make those same faces when I feel those emotions. And also 98% sure that no one I know does, either.

Yeah, they were such caricatures that my score took a few hits early on. I thought I was supposed to be looking for the real emotion underneath the obvious fake one.

Anyone have a better link? I got 15/20, and my boyfriend got 19/20. I want a good one because a part of my issues is being able to read others' expressions (I tend to interpret neutral faces as being angry. I have a theory about this.)

My score was 19 out of 20. I thought it was a good test, and the images were realistic. I took a few seconds on each image to eliminate the wrong choices from consideration.

I got 25 out of 36 on this Harvard test on reading feelings from just pictures of eyes. They say the average is 26 out of 36.

I suck at all those kinds of quizzes and I'm not going to take another one so I can feel bad about myself... but they do make me want to take a microexpressions class, because it's a learnable skill.

I agree with SBS that the faces in the original quiz Portia posted seemed a little over-acted. I got 17 out of 20, but I did better towards the end because I read the descriptions as I went along. I got 31/36 on the Harvard one. (Probably did better on that than I would have if I hadn't read the descriptions on the other one yesterday...). But I also think teaching has made me more aware of these things, as I frequently have to scan the class for emotions like confused, bored, confident, engaged, etc.

I got 30/36 on the Harvard one. That's much more like the one I took before. Once I started it, I remembered it had been eyes only. But it was in color, and the test had a different layout. I think I do better there because I don't actually process features very well. I typically focus on just one or two features in any face and honestly can't remember someone's face 10 minutes after they leave me. This is a big problem when I focus on hair, or something equally changeable. Eyes and hair are the two features I notice most, so gauging emotion off of eyes is more natural for me.

Whistler wrote:they do make me want to take a microexpressions class, because it's a learnable skill.

Oooh, this sounds fascinating. Where would one find a microexpressions class offered?

Also, I got 15/20 and I thought a few of them were borderline. Now on to the Harvard quiz.

Violet wrote:

Whistler wrote:they do make me want to take a microexpressions class, because it's a learnable skill.

Oooh, this sounds fascinating. Where would one find a microexpressions class offered?

Paul Eckman did some of the first research on microexpressions, and he has made somewhat of a business of selling software to teach their identification. They do have a financial incentive to overstate their claims, but I have confidence that their product is somewhat reasonable, though I haven't tried it yet. http://www.paulekman.com/products/

My score was 32 out of 36 on the Harvard test.

That's a very good score, vorpal blade!
An interesting case relating to reading faces is that of Chuck Close. The artist can paint your face with photorealistic accuracy, but he can't attach it to your identity very well, as he has prosopagnosia, or face blindness.

Digit wrote:An interesting case relating to reading faces is that of Chuck Close. The artist can paint your face with photorealistic accuracy, but he can't attach it to your identity very well, as he has prosopagnosia, or face blindness.

My brother is a painter, and he loves Chuck Close. I was excited when the University of Wisconsin's art museum had some of his portraits.

I got 29/36 on the Harvard test.

Digit wrote:That's a very good score, vorpal blade!
An interesting case relating to reading faces is that of Chuck Close. The artist can paint your face with photorealistic accuracy, but he can't attach it to your identity very well, as he has prosopagnosia, or face blindness.

Digit, you know some of the coolest, weirdest, randomest things.

At first Chuck Close's case confused me. If he can observe so well as to recreate it in such detail, why can't he remember a name to it? I asked myself. But then I thought of it this way, which may or may not be accurate to the reality of the case, but I can grok it: Bob Ross can paint a tree, or Albrecht Dürer can draw a leaf to fine detail with it right in front of them, but that doesn't mean either will be able to pick the tree or leaf out of a lineup later.

Thanks, Giovanni Schwartz!

I was watching a Korean drama with one of my daughters and a charactor put her tongue to the corner of her mouth. It reminded me of the facial expressions quiz where that gesture meant "lust" or "desire." It helped me understand what was going on. It is surprising how the same facial expressions are used throughout the world, apparently.