reading faces

[humblepie]

just how bad are T's at reading emotions?


can you tell the difference between this photo:

Google Image Result for http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2515623915_e91fe39875.jpg




and this:


Google Image Result for http://mikifoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/_mg_9881sepia.jpg

i thought i'd start off easy,i'll try to add a few more later. it would be interesting to see if there is a cut off point where a T stops noticing subtle changes in emotion.

[Azeroffs]

lol, well you're going to have be more subtle than that.

And if T types are looking for and know to look for emotions, they will do just as well as feelers for the most part. The problem is that T types don't always recognize emotional aspects in situations where it might be ambiguous. It's those sensitive, iffy situations.

[Skeptic]

Bah, I've always been able to identify visual emotional expression with ease. Tests I took alwasy called me feminine for it too, damned useless things...

[The Exception]

I can tell the obvious ones like when someone's really happy, sad, angry, anxious, etc. What's hard for me is capturing the subtle nuances.

[Krig the Viking]

Yes, humblepie, even we poor 1-dimensional Fe types can tell the difference between happy and sad.

And anyway, photos are easy. I can determine anyone's mood if I have ten minutes to sit there and study their face. The hard part is figuring out people's emotions in person, when they're moving and interacting with you, not to mention putting on social masks and polite personas and whatever else, and you're trying to figure out their feelings while simultaneously not looking like a fool yourself...

[Creepy-Korpsey]

The kid is obviously sad. The baby is passing gas.

[1981slater]

I'm a Ti-ENTp but I think I can easily recognize emotions. I was really blunt when I was younger but life experience helps people develop their weak functions.

Someone said here that SLEs, when harassing someone, can read very well the emotions of their victims.

In my opinion, E*Tj < I*Tp < I*Tj < E*Tp

[humblepie]

Yes, humblepie, even we poor 1-dimensional Fe types can tell the difference between happy and sad.

And anyway, photos are easy. I can determine anyone's mood if I have ten minutes to sit there and study their face. The hard part is figuring out people's emotions in person, when they're moving and interacting with you, not to mention putting on social masks and polite personas and whatever else, and you're trying to figure out their feelings while simultaneously not looking like a fool yourself...

i'll try to find some pictures where people are masking their emotions and maybe i can help you to spot the fakers more easily.

[DirectorAbbie]

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. Try something without tears.

I've been trained as an actress and my is stronger than my . I don't think I'll have a problem.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Try this: Mind in the Eyes

I scored 28, or 78% right. Results from other tests have been about the same or better. That said, while I'm a fair hand at identifying how people are feeling, my approach to emotions is very clinical and analytical. This often leads me to mute, delay, and/or abort my responses, which can produce interpersonal dissonance, particularly with more demonstrative, socially-reliant people.

<--- ILI

Btw, the server was slow to respond at test's completion, so don't panic if it seems to hang.

[DirectorAbbie]

Try this: Mind in the Eyes

I scored 28, or 78% right.

<--- ILI

The server was a bit slow to respond when I completed the test so let it grind it out if it does the same for you.

27

Your score: 27
A typical score is in the range 22-30. If you scored over 30,
you are very accurate at decoding a person's facial expressions
around their eyes. A score under 22 indicates you find this quite difficult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correct answers for the ones you missed are:
2: upset
13: anticipating
15: contemplative
21: fantasizing
23: defiant
28: interested
29: reflective
31: confident
33: concerned

[The Exception]

I did this before and scored 21. I could tell if the overall vibe indicated a positive or negative emotion but for the majority of them, I could only narrow it down to two choices. Yep, I find this sort of thing difficult.

[Beautiful sky]

Being a T type doesn't mean that you can't recognize emotions in others or yourself and it doesn't mean that F's are any better at it then T types. Being a T type only means that they are able to put their emotions aside in a tough call and make a decision with Logic first; they are just as soft, musshy and sensitive as any F type I've seen. Te gathers info and comes to objective conclusions about them using Si to maximize their comfort or Ni to make predictions about the possibilities of markets to optimize their investments (something like that); but when they get hurt, they don't say that their emotions are hurt, they start showing it through anger and other odd ways like flashes of fury and annoying moodiness, while I come off and start to cry.

[blankblank]

I got 81% on that test. Sweet!

Wrong: Right
Terrified: Upset
Impatient: Fantasizing
Insisting: Cautious
Incredulous: Interested
Ashamed: Confident
Embarrased: Concerned
Suspicious: Distrustful

OK there is NO difference between "suspicious" and "distrustful" <_______<

I guess reading faces is not type related.

[EyeSeeCold]

I thought it read: "reading feces"

I think I need some sleep.

[Azeroffs]

I scored 34

I felt I had no clue, and just guessed...

same

[Logos]

While all humans are able to do this to some degree or another, I would attribute this to > . I imagine that, conversely, that as a general trend Ti-egos would likely be worse at this, which is why the tend to unintentionally step on people's toes so often without realizing it even if that's the very reaction they are trying to avoid.

For example in this scene of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David (Alpha NT) completely misses the looks of irritation, nervousness, and shame on Yoshi's face, while Cheryl's character (ESE) picks up on it and unsuccessfully tries to steer the conversation away.

[Logos]

Only because you know WHAT people feel, doesn't mean you know what to do with that knowledge, or what it means in a larger perspective. Fe places value on the feelings, while Se does not. Se just reads. Ime, Se reads people even better than Fe.

Se just sees. Fe reads and interprets.

SEEs, with Se and Fe as their strongest functions, are awesome. Better than ESEs, imo.

Say what? And this would distinguish them from ESEs how?

[Nowisthetime]

... and you're trying to figure out their feelings while simultaneously not looking like a fool yourself...

This is my experience with LIIs also. They like to figure out peoples feelings.

[Logos]

That's what I said...

You said "Se just reads," whereas I said, "Se just sees. Fe reads and interprets." That's different from what you said.

ESEs have Fe first and then Se. SEEs have Se first and then Fe. So if it is true that SEEs read better than ESEs, it probably is because Se reads better than Fe. Very theoretical, and possibly wrong. Just used their similar functions to "prove" my point.

Yes, but keep in mind that ESEs are dynamic types attuned to changes in the surrounding the emotional atmosphere. Their Te-role can pick up, albeit weakly, changing events, including changes in faces. Take a glance at the eye website. Do you notice something about the words used? That's right. Emotional states.

[Logos]

Do you think Se-egos don't see the difference between feelings?

Se-egos see static differences in peoples faces. But that does not mean that they can "read" the emotional context of those faces.

I didn't say SEEs are better at Fe. ESEs certainly are much better than SEEs when it comes to manipulating the emotional context. I said I think SEEs are better at knowing what people feel. As in an isolated (static) impression.

But faces constantly change and in response to external stimuli in a dynamic environment, which is what the ESE picks up better than SEEs in my experience. SEEs are more about getting what they want.

[Creepy-male]

The above dialogue sounds a lot like

"My big brother could kick your big brother's ass!"
"Nuh-uh! See, here's why!"
"No, you're wrong! I have my own argument!!"
"OMG! Shut up!!!"
"No you shut up!"

[MatthewZ]

Ananke is clearly missing that is the function of evil and stepping on babies' throats in order to get the attention of a room full of new mothers.

[cracka]

32... I probably would have done better if it wasn't 3:45am and I wasn't so buzzed...lol.

[Satan]

Doubt reading faces has anything to do with type. SLE's are some of the more perceptive people I know when it comes to reading faces. I mean, just talk to someone like Merky and you'll see what I mean.

Don't look at me for accurate perception! I got 25 on that test.

I make screwups like the guy in number 2 i said he was terrified, when he was upset.

People being upset can be terrifying though!

And I put aghast to the guy that was cautious, I don't even know what it means but it sounded cool. And he wasn't looking too good.

Then I thought the guy who was skeptical was embarassed. It all goes into one. How would you like to have your skeptism seen as embarassment.

But I dunno, I'm sure I can recognise skeptism. I'm sure I've been like "You're skeptical" when I'm digging. It's amazing how just saying someone is skeptical can make them air their doubts.

Thing is I don't remember saying "You're embarassed" but I can remember myself saying "i'd be embarassed" or something, but to be honest, I can't really relate to embarassment directly. It's kind of a more far-away thing. Like I should feel embarassment, I can't anchor directly - it's like a step away. Whereas with skeptism it's more immediate. I think it's a higher level emotion, like it's more social based rather than feeling based.

Also there are extra clues, like when someone is upset they'll generally cry, and when someone is terrified they'll generally dry out / freeze, seem colder.

Also it made me think that a lot of the time I don't even look at peoples eyes, and try to read their emotions. Especially these days.

And if someone's upset and I actually care I won't generally look them in their eyes, but I've move closer cautiously etc, and wait to see what else is there etc.

Like I get confused with the multitude of emotions and shit and try and seperate them all out etc. And it's complicated. People aren't just one way, there's also how quickly they shift. How deep they are in that emotion etc etc.

Like someone can seem one way, and then they can shift to another way.

And if you want to say that someone is just one way, without taking action then that's like branding them and shit. And you are just an observor. Which is what I think TV etc encourages. But I kind of think people should shift etc. And i can kind of ignore one emotion until another one comes along.

But yeah primarily I think I deal with less emotional range and generalise and shit. And pickup on emotions without seeing eyes. And kind of see eyes as more intimate connection etc.

But like, for instance, the other day I was going to this restaurant that I often go to for lunch. And there's this girl that works there that was outside having a cigarette and I looked at her in the eyes, and she said something after a while, but I realised afterwards, it's like instead of saying hi and passing by people, when I know people better I often *just* look them in the eyes and face rather than saying hi or something, as that seems more dismissive.?

Thing is that I didn't register any emotion I just looked on list of facial expressions and I'd say it was closest to desire/interested. But it was weak / further away not like coming through strong or anything.

And to me I no it's like not negative, but it's also not strong enough to like actually lead to anything other than towards healthy positive interactions.

Then some random girl the other night seemed to be giving mixed signals. And if I look at eye body language, I'd say cautious. But to me it seemed like she didn't know what she wanted to do. And was kind of shy / socially anxious.

But it's different in the real world to looking at static images of peoples eyes or anything. I mean what could i have done to make that girl feel more comfortable? She knew other people there and not me. To me it seemed to make sense to just kind of acknowledge it to myself and not do anything. Although no-one else seemed to want to do anything to make her feel more comfortable.

Anyway, the thing is these things can change over time. People can be nervous around new people etc. And it helps to have context with people.

And how much responsibility for other peoples states should one have?

Anyway in my infinite amount of low socialism recently that's the only two incidents of taking notice of peoples eyes I even remember.

Oh there's one more, I went to the supermarket tonight, and here they always have to have a manager swipe a card when buying alcohol. And sometimes the manager's are slow to come to people, so I'd stuck my beer near the front. And the girl serving me had rang her little bell thing, and put her hand up half-heartedly. And it was taking a while and nothing was happening. So I looked at the manager from quite a bit away. And she seemed to be doing something or other and not really wanting to come over. And the girl serving me swiped my stuff through still with her hand in the air. Then rang the bell again. Anyway, I looked more definitely the second time. And then finally she seemed to realise and then as she came closer she seemed to be moving faster and faster, somewhat urgently, then she looks at me accusingly, and proclaims "how are you?" somewhat annoyed, but that manager seems a bit uneasy at times and I know it's just in her character, and I like look back at her and say "hey" and she swipes the card and is off.

Now, I wasn't really paying that much attention to her emotions in her eyes, I knew she was kind of urgent, and it didn't surprise me that she was like "how are you?" in an urgent way, not in a placid wanting small talk kind of way or anything. And so I just responded affirmatively enough, and she was off. But generally speaking when people look at you, it's polite to look back. Whether they're disgruntled, happy, calm, serene, annoyed, irritated, or whatever state they happen to be in. But to me as much mapping as I seem to get is that she's probably e6. And kind of leaking anxiety. But feeling the need to kind of confront.

But like i wasn't feeling like confronting or anything, or mentioning to her how the girl serving me had to wait for ages. All I could really do in that situation was look at the manager that was meant to come over. And that's just cos I've been there before, so I knew who it was, and I knew where she'd be.

Oh actually that is one observation thing I do, do, like I often look at people a bit earlier. In case I want to get their attention later or anything. Most people don't suddenly feel the need to engage if you just look at them, so it's usually safe. But it means if you want to engage them later you can look at them more definitely. But some people don't respond to such. And some people don't seem to really like it.

But with some people you can just look at them, and they'll know to come over to you. But if you do that, some people who talk/yell to get peoples attention can get a little weird. But I'll look more definitely if I want someone's attention more, and less definitely if I want someone's attention. And at the same time if other people seem wrong in how definite they are I'll try and adjust it for them, into my own interpretation for them. Like some people some more impatient / less impatient so with some people you have to adjust.

So yeah 3 eye contacts I can remember in a week. That's hardly anything.
But all 3 seemed somewhat different. So to recap one was friendly-enough, one was apprehensive enough, one was hostile-enough.

[Satan]

y'know i probably did the worst.

[Logos]

Hmm.. You don't understand...

For a SEE, reality DOESN'T change dynamically. Static functions read static information - the information that isn't changing. It means that Se reads "sad" - "still sad" - "a bit less sad" - "now with a bit of anger" - etc- etc. Static impressions of how things change.

Dynamic functions work differently. They read how sad can go to anger. Not the states themselves. They see the direction and the why/how. Fe knows how sad can go to angry, for example.

It appears that you do not understand. [/quote]But the point is that reading faces is not reading static information, but dynamic information that is in a constant flux. Se perceives external/physical static information, but it is Fe that actually interprets this, and Fe is a larger component to this than Se.

Edit: Also, it is wrong to assume that Se is more egoistic than Fe. That is just your projection because you don't value Se.

It's not a projection of anything, nor is it in anyway a negative comment towards SEE. It's actually something I admire about SEEs. It's part of their type descriptions as a natural outgrowth Se + Fi.

I love how you call Logos a "baby".

Thanks alot, MatthewZ!

[Blaze]

i got only 26, by the time i got to the end i was exhausted. it's hard to keep up on. at least for me.

my 12 yo ESE daughter got 33. shit.

[cracka]

i got only 26, by the time i got to the end i was exhausted. it's hard to keep up on. at least for me.

my 12 yo ESE daughter got 33. shit.

I bet she had to ask what a few of the words meant.

[CILi]

22.

I thought I was really onto something, trying to mimic "the eyes" myself and see how I feel as a result, but apparently... not so much.

[ashlesha]

I thought I was really onto something, trying to mimic "the eyes" myself and see how I feel as a result

hahaha, that's awesome.

i got 27. eh.

[Blaze]

I bet she had to ask what a few of the words meant.

indeed she did! but i thought it was great how she just picked it off. got it done more quickly than i did too.

whoever found this test: awesome. it's an Fe test, if i ever saw one.

tried to get inpfman to take it but he wouldn't.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

whoever found this test: awesome. it's an Fe test, if i ever saw one.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post706982

Fe's supposedly my vulnerable function, lucky #4, and I got 28 right by rushing through the test and avoiding second guesses.

[Blaze]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post706982

Fe's supposedly my vulnerable function, lucky #4, and I got 28 right by rushing through the test and avoiding second guesses.

interesting.

sometimes i wonder about the polr. like, i can see Fi in operation well, identify when other people are using it, but i can't do it well myself. almost like you can perceive it but you can produce it. but it's a conscious function.

with Fe (my HA) it's almost totally unconscious. when somebody has a lot of positive Fe it basically makes me open up and relax and i feel better. it is really hard for me to tell how people are feeling unless they make it totally obvious.

whereas with Fi it's less facial expression and more body language and who people direct their attention to. i almost interpret Fi as politics...i can totally see it playing out in an obvious way. esp when it involves others and not me. when it involves me, it's harder to see.

dunno though .... Fi blind spot is there as well. sometimes i pick terrible people who can't be trusted and are users to be "friends". needless to say, those situations have not gone well.

[Blaze]

@ashton/ananke: true, but the test isolates Fe, separates it from the other IM's. not really a bad test at all...and if we look at the types and the scores...i'd say the reliability is not half bad either.

[Blaze]

No it doesn't.

yes it does yes it does yes it does, infinity

[Trevor]

I got 13.