Facial Analysis of Malaysia Pilots
When I look at these two pilots, their faces automatically communicate information to me. Science has been studying this and call it “personality identification at zero acquaintance.” I call it facial profiling.
When I look at Capt Zaharie Ahmad Shah, the second man in the grouping above, I see very warm features in his face. His nose, lips and cheeks support a very kind and compassionate person. I believe the captain was very well liked by people. He had a soft, gentle nature about him in his daily life. He was likely superb around children, too. He was a caring individual. People trusted him without question. He was always respectful of others as well.
I also see a very intelligent man–one who had above average intelligence. He likely was known as someone who was very smart. And yet at the same time, I see a slight deviant side to his personality–a side that makes me pause slightly. I have hesitation to trust him completely. And ironically, I don’t see this side of him in all of his photos, but is clearly there, which means he could have fooled people. People may not have seen it either.
In the limited photos we see of him on the internet, he also expresses contempt multiple times, which is notable. Both the deviant look in some of the photos, and this expression give me pause and concern, though by themselves do not mean anything conclusive. They just show a potential for behavior that one must consider. No one can ever conclusively predict behavior. We can only say one has a higher propensity for certain behaviors.
When I read that the captain’s wife and children left him the day before the flight — that concerns me on multiple levels. I’d be curious to know why.
- Did his wife know something about him that she didn’t approve of (maybe have knowledge of something that was going to take place)?
- Was she seeing an unstable side to his personality (mental illness)? Mental illness doesn’t always present in photographs unless it is advanced.
- Did she leave him for another man or relationship that devastated him?
These are important factors to identify when determining potential propensities for actions that one might take.
People who are highly compassionate have a higher propensity to commit suicide as well–so we must consider that.
Could the captain have committed suicide by taking the plane down? Could he have been so desperately upset that his wife left him, that he veered off course in deep emotional distress in contemplation of suicide and then dove the plane straight down?
Did he struggle for hours about it?
Did he lock the co-pilot out of the cockpit? All are plausible with a compassionate person under life’s stressful situations.
Or did his devious side come out and plan something sinister out of anger or feelings of rejection, or something else? Was his rejection by his wife instantaneous or building over time?
When I look at the co-pilot, Fariq Abdul Hamid, I see a very honest, straight-shooter personality. What you see is what you get. He is polite, respectful, and is one to follow the rules. He takes the world at face value, whereas the pilot was a deep thinker and contemplated many things. The pilot was one to think outside the box. The co-pilot, however, hummed along in life much more lightly. He is much more easy going, accepting of life as it was, and his circumstances. The co-pilot’s mantra was like, “Things are what they are–don’t fret over them.” He wasn’t one to dwell on issues. He was one to quickly recover from adversity and moved on to life’s next adventure.
It’s also possible the plane was taken over by terrorists, or the plane had a catastrophic failure. I am open to all potentials. I’ve flown enough flights to know that when a pilot takes a flight, he, like everyone else, has to use the bathroom and in that moment, all planes are vulnerable to attack and infiltration into the cockpit by sinister people.
Which motive in the MICE acronym (Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego) would you consider Shah most driven by? I’d say conscience, but I could be wrong.
That’s a tough one. I’d need to know him more because more than one is possible with him and I think he may have had contractions. Not all people are black and white in one answer.
So a direct question based on your observations: Do you think him capable of something terrible if it ensured his family’s safety and security?
“Capable” is a wide net to cast and probably dangerous when only speculating.
The question in this instance is formed to weed out a possibility or to pursue further a particular line of inquiry. Speculation is discouraged in this instance and there is too much on this matter as it is.
Forming a Spring SnapCharT on this incident is difficult at best given the panoply of dis-information and pundit speculation available.
He shows a potential deviant side — a side that is willing to think things and not share them, and feelings of contempt. I think that answers your question. It’s a potential. In the co-pilot, I don’t see either of these.
Keep in mind that he is twice the co-pilots chronological age, but even more so he has 35 years more of mature age (the age of maturity and voting), than the co-pilot who has only 9 years of mature age. The co-pilot is only 27 so he is an innocent in that sense. Mature age does come with a lot of the baggage of life experiences and some cynicism and disgust and thinking things and not sharing them. I don’t see that as unusual in someone aged 53.
We have to disagree completely. I can point out dozens and dozen of people over 50 who have a beautiful outlook on life, who aren’t contemptuous nor have a deviant side–and are not jaded by life. I find your comment disheartening to have that outlook on people who are older… I can only imagine you are young.
I’m sorry that my comment disheartened you and it was not meant to say that older people cannot be equally sunny and hopeful about life. Of course they can and are, but a deep thinking and caring person, as the pilot seemed to have been, will take things to heart and maybe show more of those expressions on his face. That is not to say that he is out of balance as a person and it would be abnormal to be sunny and cheery all the time.
Older people don’t show more emotions than others (younger people). Actually, the reverse is true. The youth will show the most emotion–as they experience new things in life. The older one gets, the more accustomed to life they are, the less new experiences evokes strong emotions. Life actually slow emotional expression as a general rule!
🙂
Grant, aren’t most people capable of doing something “terrible” if it ensured their family’s safety and security?
Definitely, in a general sense. However, when asking such questions of a behavior expert such as E4L, that question possesses a larger purpose. While anyone is capable, experts can help an investigator focus on the more probable leads when answering such questions.
Which motive in the MICE acronym (Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego) would you consider Shah most driven by? I’d say conscience, but I could be wrong.
That’s a tough one. I’d need to know him more because more than one is possible with him and I think he may have had contractions. Not all people are black and white in one answer.
So a direct question based on your observations: Do you think him capable of something terrible if it ensured his family’s safety and security?
“Capable” is a wide net to cast and probably dangerous when only speculating.
The question in this instance is formed to weed out a possibility or to pursue further a particular line of inquiry. Speculation is discouraged in this instance and there is too much on this matter as it is.
Forming a Spring SnapCharT on this incident is difficult at best given the panoply of dis-information and pundit speculation available.
He shows a potential deviant side — a side that is willing to think things and not share them, and feeling of contempt. I think that answers your question. It’s a potential. In the co-pilot, I don’t see either of these.
Keep in mind that he is twice the co-pilots chronological age but even more so, he has 35 years more of mature age (the age of maturity and voting) than the co-pilot who has only 9 years of mature age. The co-pilot is only 27 so he is an innocent in that sense. Mature age does come with a lot of the baggage of life experiences and some cynicism and disgust and thinking things and not sharing them. I don’t see that as unusual in someone aged 53.
We have to disagree completely. I can point out dozens and dozen of people over 50 who have a beautiful outlook on life, who aren’t contemptuous nor have a deviant side–and are not jaded by life. I find your comment disheartening to have that outlook on people who are older… I can only imagine you are young.
I’m sorry that my comment disheartened you and it was not meant to say that older people cannot be equally sunny and hopeful about life. Of course they can and are, but a deep thinking and caring person, as the pilot seemed to have been, will take things to heart and maybe show more of those expressions on his face. That is not to say that he is out of balance as a person and it would be abnormal to be sunny and cheery all the time.
Older people don’t show more emotions than others (younger people). Actually, the reverse is true. The youth will show the most emotion–as they experience new things in life. The older one gets, the more accustomed to life they are, the less new experiences evokes strong emotions. Life actually slow emotional expression as a general rule!
🙂
Grant, aren’t most people capable of doing something “terrible” if it ensured their family’s safety and security?
Definitely, in a general sense. However, when asking such questions of a behavior expert such as E4L, that question possesses a larger purpose. While anyone is capable, experts can help an investigator focus on the more probable leads when answering such questions.
Thanks for this! Fascinating stuff! Is there any chance you could do a facial analysis of Amanda Knox, and/or Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede?? Personally I think Guede and Sollecito have ‘normal’ faces but I have always thought Knox has strange and very cold eyes (they actually really scared me in that video interview she did recently for The Guardian), but I don’t know if that’s mainly because I think she is guilty so am seeing what I think is already there… Would LOVE your analysis on their faces!! Thanks for all your posts 🙂
EFL has commented about Knox’s facial expressions in several of the interviews she’s given to the media.
To clarify what Sprocket said, it should read, “in several of the interviews Knox has given to the media.” That’s in case you’re not a regular on the blog and think Sprocket meant interviews that Eyes has given to the media, as there have only been a precious few so far.
Thank you Keith. I can always count on you to describe things in a way that make them clearer; better understandable. <3
You’re welcome! 😀
Yes I’ve read all them – but this analysis was more about the pilots’ facial features and expression in general, rather than analysing their expressions in reaction to them. Just curious as to whether she (or anyone else here…) would agree that there is a real obvious coldness to AK’s eyes in general…
Thanks for this! Fascinating stuff! Is there any chance you could do a facial analysis of Amanda Knox, and/or Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede?? Personally I think Guede and Sollecito have ‘normal’ faces but I have always thought Knox has strange and very cold eyes (they actually really scared me in that video interview she did recently for The Guardian), but I don’t know if that’s mainly because I think she is guilty so am seeing what I think is already there… Would LOVE your analysis on their faces!! Thanks for all your posts 🙂
EFL has commented about Knox’s facial expressions in several of the interviews she’s given to the media.
To clarify what Sprocket said, it should read, “in several of the interviews Knox has given to the media.” That’s in case you’re not a regular on the blog and think Sprocket meant interviews that Eyes has given to the media, as there have only been a precious few so far.
Thank you Keith. I can always count on you to describe things in a way that make them clearer; better understandable. <3
You’re welcome! 😀
Yes I’ve read all them – but this analysis was more about the pilots’ facial features and expression in general, rather than analysing their expressions in reaction to them. Just curious as to whether she (or anyone else here…) would agree that there is a real obvious coldness to AK’s eyes in general…
Its been said that the copilot allowed passengers (women) into the cockpit a few years back. Thats a pretty big offense for someone who “is one who follows the rules.”
It’s something most pilots do at one time or another.
I don’t know that pilots in America do today with the new FAA regulations, but I don’t know the regulations in Malaysia or other countries. I do think all people break rules, but some have a higher propensity to ignore them with more disregard while others as a general rule respect them for the most part. All humans break rules, its to which degree and the seriousness. I am sure to that co-pilot, he thought there was no risk in his mind. He felt in control with those two girls. Maybe not the wisest decision…
and what man hasn’t done something at some time for a lady that was against the ‘rules’ of work when showing off
I don’t know how I missed this – March 21 is J.S. Bach’s birthday. He was born in 1685. Johann Sebastian Bach “was reprimanded for entertaining a girl in the organ loft—he later married her; she bore 7 children, 4 survived to adulthood”. So even Bach did this!
Source: http://blogs.wfmt.com/offmic/2014/03/20/friday-bach-to-basics/
Mary, are you telling me that you never broke a rule in your life? Because if you have, by your standards, your someone we should always treat suspiciously. Checkmark by your name. It’s not that easy, unfortunately. Overall, that co-pilot is a rule follower. Has he broken rules? Of course.
When did I ever say or imply that I have never broken rules? My “standards” are that pilots should not allow random people into the cockpit. People who “follow rules” dont commit terminable offenses to be “liked” or to impress. Someone who follows rules, to me, is someone like one of my contractors who will refuse to charge me hours “worked” when he feels he wasnt productive. Or who refuses who jaywalk on an empty street.
Its been said that the copilot allowed passengers (women) into the cockpit a few years back. Thats a pretty big offense for someone who “is one who follows the rules.”
It’s something most pilots do at one time or another.
I don’t know that pilots in America do today with the new FAA regulations, but I don’t know the regulations in Malaysia or other countries. I do think all people break rules, but some have a higher propensity to ignore them with more disregard while others as a general rule respect them for the most part. All humans break rules, its to which degree and the seriousness. I am sure to that co-pilot, he thought there was no risk in his mind. He felt in control with those two girls. Maybe not the wisest decision…
and what man hasn’t done something at some time for a lady that was against the ‘rules’ of work when showing off
I don’t know how I missed this – March 21 is J.S. Bach’s birthday. He was born in 1685. Johann Sebastian Bach “was reprimanded for entertaining a girl in the organ loft—he later married her; she bore 7 children, 4 survived to adulthood”. So even Bach did this!
Source: http://blogs.wfmt.com/offmic/2014/03/20/friday-bach-to-basics/
Mary, are you telling me that you never broke a rule in your life? Because if you have, by your standards, your someone we should always treat suspiciously. Checkmark by your name. It’s not that easy, unfortunately. Overall, that co-pilot is a rule follower. Has he broken rules? Of course.
When did I ever say or imply that I have never broken rules? My “standards” are that pilots should not allow random people into the cockpit. People who “follow rules” dont commit terminable offenses to be “liked” or to impress. Someone who follows rules, to me, is someone like one of my contractors who will refuse to charge me hours “worked” when he feels he wasnt productive. Or who refuses who jaywalk on an empty street.
You showed us a paper a few years back on facial profiling, where I think experts were able to differentiate between criminals and non-criminals based on their photos, correct?
The pictures from the criminales were from their mug shots or when they were in prison, but they did not show their clothes. I think almost everyone can agree that mugshots pictures are not people’s best pictures. Also a person that is in prison does not have the best skin care and so they might not look their best. Think Amanda Knox’s look in prison and her look now.
Could the analysis of facial profiling be biased then?
I have a really hard time with the concept of facial profiling because I feel it can so very easily fall into being racist or creating prejudices. You see a face, and then from that infer so many things about the person, without really knowing them.
jeff: “At Cornell University, psychologist Jeffrey Valla and his colleagues set out to test just how readily people can spot criminals based on facial appearance alone. They prepared close-cropped, expressionless, facial photos of clean-shaven Caucasian men in their twenties and asked volunteers to identify the murderers, rapists, thieves, forgers, drug dealers, and so on. Men and women alike could distinguish convicts from noncriminals with above-chance accuracy…”. And yes, the pictures from the criminals were mugshots manipulated so that they didn`t evidently look so.
No doubt that study was flawed. I don’t think you can’t compare mugshots from criminals with normal head shots from supposedly non criminals and be surprised they were identified above average!
Note that the men were in their twenties, so some of them might commit a crime after the study. Were they distinguished more than average? Note also that some of the convicted men might in fact be wrongly so. Were they not distinguished more than average? No way of knowing!
Yes, scientific studies are being made in facial profiling, but nothing have been proved, and I can’t see why anything will. I find the whole concept akin to astrology.
Hi Martin,
I found your reference to the Cornell study interesting. Do you have a link to that particular paper? also what are the statistical findings of correctly identifying criminals versus those who are not from that particular study? thanks in advance
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/04/study-we-can-spot-criminals-photos
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals
http://shell.newpaltz.edu/jsec/articles/volume5/issue1/VallaVol5Iss1.pdf
Nothing has been proven? Clearly you haven’t read the scientific studies. You are remiss. https://www.eyesforlies.com/facial-profiling/the-science-of-facial-profiling/
I post a dozen studies from REPUTABLE UNIVERSITIES which have demonstrated this is a valid science.
Furthermore, if you judge someone who shows anger in their face, you are, in fact, facially profiling, on a rudimentary level. You take the expression on the face and determine the person has a higher propensity to react, or otherwise act out versus someone who smiling to you.
Is this why some people seem to get busted by the police over and over again,….while a rare few criminals that might look like a more innocent type person get away with soooo much and always get away with just a warning if they’re caught at all?
For this particular study discussed in this thread Martin is right. The only thing this study proves is that people can distinguish cropped faces that originated from mug shot from those that didn’t. Or to put it another way “people who go through booking look like criminals while they’re being booked”. I know from personal experience that the emotions you feel when making a so called “neutral expression” (term used in study) during a mug shot is totally different from the neutral expression when in line at a grocery store, and I was only picked up for traffic warrants. If they used pictures of known criminal making neutral pictures in neutral situations then they might have proven something.
I’m not saying that the science of facial profiling is bad, but this particular study is bad science no matter how reputable the university is.
Hello Eyes! I went to the link and read the abstracts. They all say something like:
“Results suggest there may be a relationship between [whatever it studied].”
Sorry. That’s not proof!
Many things are called “facial profiling”. They refer to a disparate set of subject matters. Most of us are able, most of the time, to read accurately the expressions other make in response to emotions. If that is “facial profiling”, it’s irrelevant for we aren’t discussing that. What we are discussing is the possibility of accurately predicting behavior based on facial traits. It hasn’t been proven that it can be done, although some “results suggets it may be possible.”
Finally, this type of “facial profiling”, at least, is very far from being accurate!
http://www.today.com/entertainment/bearded-duck-dynasty-star-says-he-was-victim-facial-profiling-6C10945730
Hi Martin,
Here are actual excerpts from the actual abstracts of a few of the articles:
“We then report two experiments in which participants, given a set of headshots of criminals and non-criminals, were able to reliably distinguish between these two groups, after controlling for the gender, race, age, attractiveness, and emotional displays, as well as any potential clues of picture origin.”
Another study:
“Not only that, but the Brock University study demonstrates that these automatic predictions can be remarkably accurate.”
Another study:
“Individuals do perform better than chance at guessing another’s personality from only facial information, providing some support for the popular belief that it is possible to assess accurately personality from faces.”
Another study:
“A limited but growing literature has shown that our impressions can be both consensual and predictive despite important social and perceptual distinctions, such as differences in culture.”
Another study:
“In most cases, the observers were able to tell which of the listeners had the “kindness gene” and which ones did not, said the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences edition of November 14 [2011]”
Another study:
“Research has shown that people are able to judge sexual orientation from faces with above-chance accuracy, but little is known about how these judgments are formed.”
The example you cite of the actor who was mistaken for a homeless man is a very good one to show how facial profiling can go wrong. Obviously the hotel staff person had no idea this was a famous actor, and mistook the man. Just because the hotel staff person was completely wrong in this situation does not prove that no one can do this skill, only that this staff person in this situation failed to demonstrate the skill. How does that prove the research is flawed? I’m not getting the connection between the two.
Hi Russ. At the link in question, Eyes listed 13 abstracts and 4 summaries of articles. 8 of the abstracts used the pattern I pointed out: “These findings suggest such and such…” None of the summaries used the pattern; however, 2 of the articles themselves did use it. That makes 10 out of the 17. So, I’ll rephrase that sentence of my post:
Most of them say something like:
“Results suggest there may be a relationship between [whatever it studied].”
But it doesn’t change the conclusion:
Sorry. That’s not proof!
I hope that pleases you.
>Sorry. That’s not proof!
Exactly! 🙂 Proof is the domain of nerdy math people (like me) and the results of a few of them are famous – the Pythagorean Theorem, Four Colors Suffice, the Quadratic formula, Fermat’s Last Theorem, to name a few. (Hate to disappoint anyone, but I didn’t discover any of those!)
Science does not deal with proof. Nothing is proven in any science. Ever. Things can be disproven, but not proven.
Thus what is happening in science is that evidence (and that’s what all this is regarding facial profiling) is gathered, published, criticized, refined, and the process repeats. So at this point we have evidence in the published studies and some conclusions that show us the conditions under which facial profiling works – with some caveats from the authors of the studies, and Eyes herself – on the limitations of what we know and do not know. You seem to be focusing on the caveats, which are a necessary but not sufficient part of the analysis. Please feel free to correct me if that’s not accurate.
This is *exactly* how science is supposed to work. Our understanding (of facial profiling, but any topic will work) will continue to improve as more research is done. Conclusions will be clarified, conditions for success (or failure) will be tested, and our understanding will move forward.
While science is moving forward, we already have living, breathing examples that can do the skills. The fact that science can’t fully explain it yet does not mean it doesn’t exist. (the most famous example is consciousness) The fact that there is no proof – and never will be because science does not deal with proof – yields the same conclusion.
The scientific understanding of facial profiling is incomplete but sufficient to show that the skills do exist, some people can do facial profiling with a degree of accuracy that significantly surpasses random chance, and that more study is definitely warranted.
PS – personal note – I stink at facial profiling. You don’t want me doing it, I’ll be wrong way more than 50% of the time. I’d be better off flipping a coin. But the science shows other people can do it, and have consistent and reliable results. I trust the evidence, not my own skills 🙂
Hi, Russ! I stand corrected. I’ll rephrase: I don’t see any evidence that it is possible to draw conclusions with some useful degree of accuracy regarding the personality of a subject by analyzing a photograph. Much less predict behavior.
Research is being carried out. The acceptance of those results by the scientific community depends on the methodologies and data used. I only read the study that used mug shots. In my
opinion its findings are worthless. I agree with Tracker when he says that what “the study proves is that people can distinguish cropped faces that originated from mug shot from those that didn’t.” Since Keith D. stated that “it’s more likely that a mug shot will show a person without whatever mask they’d normally wear,” and according to this view they were compared to people wearing their masks, I tend to believe that he would agree with us on the fact that this study was flawed; unless, of course, that he doesn’t mind because it supports his opinion…
Let me correct you this time, you wrote: “science
shows other people can do it [facial profiling]”. Wrong. Science doesn’t show anything. Some experiments do show better
than random success at some tasks, under certain situations. Are those situations neutral enough as to draw valid conclusions from those results? If you believe so, I can live with that. I don’t think so. Can you live with it?
Hi Martin,
Corrections always appreciated. It is true that science doesn’t show anything, I did overstate there. My conclusions from the experiments is that there is sufficient evidence to show that some people can do facial profiling and draw valid conclusions under certain situations. It’s also clear that your conclusion is that you don’t think so. Yes, I can live with that 🙂
“I tend to believe that he would agree with us on the fact that this study was flawed…”
I do agree– that is a substantial flaw with that particular study. The control photos would have to have been taken under the same photographic conditions for the results to be more reliable. I don’t consider post-processing to make a mug shot appear not to be a mug shot valid in the least.
For example, most professional portraits are taken with a long focal length lens at a distance which frames the subject’s face similarly to a close-up mug shot taken at a police station (or driver’s license or passport photo) in order to minimize the apparent visual distortion of facial features.
On the other hand, if the control photos used were driver’s license or passport photos, that would eliminate much of that flaw, as the photos would all have been taken under similar conditions with similar or identical equipment. I have no idea whether that was the case with that study or not. You could always try contacting the study authors and asking if you were interested. I’ve done that in the past when I’ve read studies that I thought were weak or flawed. Sometimes I find that it was the paper which was flawed, not the study itself. Other times, I’ve found that the study itself was flawed.
Post processing and focal lens length are not the major flaws in this study. It’s the emotional state one is in when getting a mug shot taken vs getting a driver license photo taken. The researchers would need to obtain driver license or passport photos of the criminals, not the controls, in order for this study to be valid.
In my personal experience, emotional state doesn’t really affect facial profiling in most cases, although more pronounced expressions can certainly make it difficult (for me). Most people in mug shots aren’t showing pronounced emotional expressions though.
It would be better still to have a photo from both prior and after a crime has been committed. But even then, you still run into the problem of whether or not a particular person has committed a crime that they have never been caught or convicted of. You can’t ever rule that out no matter how careful the study design is, so any study of differentiating between criminals and non-criminals is automatically going to be flawed at least in that way. There’s also the possibility of someone being convicted of a crime they’re innocent of.
This kind of study could never definitively prove anything, but strong correlations beyond statistical norms can still be useful.
Perhaps “emotional state” is not a good term to use. I’ve read in one of Paul Eckman’s books a long time ago that emotions, especially intense ones, last only for a short period. Moods can last for days or months.
So I would argue there is a certain type of mood someone would probably be in when getting a mug shot taken, and that people can detect that mood even if they don’t consciously aware of why (they just happen to look like criminals), and I would offer this study as proof of my hypothesis.
Satoshi Kanazawa of Psychology Today (the 2nd of 3 links that Russ provided) argues that the reason the people in this study could differentiate criminals vs non-criminal but couldn’t differentiate between the type of criminals (the forgers from the rapists from the murderers ect) because “criminals don’t specialize”. To me that sounds absurd, and I would need some good solid evidence to give that theory consideration (like this study repeated with driver license photos instead).
As far as “emotional state doesn’t really affect facial profiling in most cases” I think Eye’s would have to disagree. In her Order A Facial Profile page she has a stipulation about the photos you submit; “They must appear as they normally do–in their normal state, comfortable and relaxed”. I think that would disqualify mug shots (unless it’s about the 20th mugshot some has had taken).
Tracker, I disagree with you. Keith is correct that emotional state doesn’t affect facial profiling in most cases. It can, but its not typical.
I’ll try to elaborate a little on what Eyes says in her reply below.
Emotions are fleeting, moods are stretched out over longer terms. Moods don’t have exaggerated expressions the way emotional expressions do– the expressions that signify a mood are relatively subtle by comparison. They can definitely be seen, as most people have at one time or another looked at someone they know and thought, “wow, they’re in a bad mood today”, even if that person isn’t in a moment where something bad is happening to them.
The reason why moods and emotional expressions don’t generally affect facial profiling is because each personality type has certain moods and emotions that they’re prone to experience in day to day life. In other words, each personality will have moods and emotions typical to their individual personality. It’s uncommon that a situation will occur where most people will react in a manner which is atypical to their personality, which is where the mood or emotional expression could cause it to go wrong.
If you think of a person that you know who is known to be always lighthearted and cheery, and think of another person who is known to always be a sourpuss and bitter about everything, you can see that those states are typical for each of those people. But if you reverse those and see the person who is always a sourpuss being lighthearted and cheery, you can easily see that it’s an atypical state for that person. Likewise, the lighthearted and cheery person being a sourpuss and bitter about everything will also be clearly atypical for that person. Those are usually very easy to identify with most people.
But there are other people who are difficult to read and profile in detail, and atypical moods for those people can sometimes be difficult to identify as atypical. The people who are at the polar ends of a spectrum are easy to identify, but there are a small but significant number of people who fall more in the middle of the spectrum who make it difficult or impossible to differentiate those things with. That can cause problems and lead to errors.
I don’t know this, but I strongly suspect that the people for whom mood can sometimes affect facial profiling would be the people who Eyes would describe as “neutral” people, or “negative” people, borrowing her own definition of the words “neutral” and “negative” in those contexts. I don’t think facial profiling would tend to be prone to error with who she describes as “positive” people, but I could be mistaken. She is much better at facial profiling than I am in my experience. I’m more prone to error.
Regarding the link to the actor supposedly mistaken for a homeless, you totally missed the point.
It just illustrated the fact that too many things are called “facial profile”, some of which obviously may lead us to draw the wrong conclusions.
Thanks for the clarification, it is appreciated.
I’ll let Eyes answer this for you, but I’ll throw in my own experience.
Facial profiling doesn’t involve biases or prejudices– although those can interfere with it, which means that in order to do facial profiling with any accuracy, you’d need to be someone who’s able to sort out and discount your biases and prejudices. Not everyone can readily do that, so I suspect a lot of people would be prone to error if they attempted it.
As far as mug shot photos not showing people looking their best goes– this is true. But when that person doesn’t look their best, they simply look like that person not looking their best– they don’t generally look like someone else entirely. In fact, because of the nature of a mug shot, I think it’s more likely that they’ll look like themselves, rather than the well-manicured, controlled version of themselves that they’d normally put forward. In other words, it’s more likely that a mug shot will show a person without whatever mask they’d normally wear. So for example, when I see a picture of someone when they’re haggard, I see that person, but I see them as they look when they’re haggard– their fundamental personality doesn’t change, only their present circumstances do (“present circumstances” in terms of when the photo was taken in this case).
It would be similar to suddenly giving someone a lot of power, or money, or getting them very drunk. These things don’t change who the person is, they simply reveal that part of who the person is that isn’t ordinarily seen.
If you don’t have experience or a natural talent for facial profiling, then it’s easy to imagine that you’d overestimate what you can actually see by looking at someone’s face.
Try an experiment though and test it out for yourself. Look through photos of your friends on Facebook or similar, and ask yourself for each one, “is this person an introvert or an extrovert?” This one is usually pretty easy to pick out, so you should have some good success with it. Then, if you want to really test your skill, try it with friends of your friends– people who they know well but you don’t– and ask them to tell you how well you do.
Another way to practice and see how it works is to look at two pictures of two different people side by side. Pick a random attribute, and ask yourself which of the two people is more of that attribute. For instance, “A is more outgoing, B is more shy, B is more kind-hearted, A is more skeptical, B is more introverted, A is more outdoorsy” etc. I find that doing it that way can make it a lot easier to start identifying a person’s personality traits when I’m stuck.
What someone like Eyes does with facial profiling is essentially the same thing, except multiplied by like a thousand. It’s very quick and very accurate (edit: well, “very quick” might be a slight exaggeration– when I do it, it sometimes takes tens of minutes to make any real progress beyond very basic things, while at other times if I’m not in the right frame of mind, I have trouble doing it at all), but not simple, and probably easy to misunderstand exactly what it can and can’t do. At least that’s based on my own experience.
I think the hardest part about facial profiling is telling a blind man about it. If he can’t see it, he will not believe it exists. When you see it, you absolutely know it is there and valid. There is nothing voodoo about it. If you read the science articles I linked to, it shows the validity scientifically. https://www.eyesforlies.com/facial-profiling/the-science-of-facial-profiling/ Scroll down the link.
I would argue most of the journals that publish these papers are
second or third tier. The only one which is a first tier is the journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Check it out in Google Scholar.
I am a scientist. I have a good idea about what publishing in second or first tier journals mean. Many studies that are botched get published
in second tier journals all the time. A lot of top universities do it.
For instance, Princeton recently published in a journal a study
about social media that was later widely ridiculed:
http://socialnewsdaily.com/22983/facebook-beautifully-debunks-princeton-study-predicts-schools-demise/
I think it’s valid to question how these studies were made, and honestly
question their validity. If it’s science you should be able to prove it to a blind man. If it’s accurate, your study should be sound and valid any where you present, right?
Jeff — I question what scientist you are to say, “if its a science you should be able to prove it to a blind man.”
Anyone who knows science knows that research takes years and years to prove hypothesis in concrete terms and sometimes it never does. That doesn’t mean it is not valid.
As a society we make many decisions for our medical care, diet and other elements in our life based on research–research that is suggestive but not concrete as you suggest.
Thanks eyes for your response. I appreciate it.
So if you researched something for years and yet you can’t prove or confirm your claims, why would your claim be valid?
What difference would your claims have to a belief?
From Wikipedia on the scientific method: “scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it
has been confirmed […] Researchers have given their lives for this vision”
I understand what you mean about suggestions. I agree that research can be used to suggest certain phenomenon is going on. I don’t see how this relates to the blind man comment. In science you do have to prove your work, and your assumptions to a variety of audiences with different backgrounds. If it’s something solid, any question or point that a third party makes, you should have it covered.
Is it arrogant to call other people blind?
–jeff, The benevolent Scientist 😉
I found your quote way down the page. You skipped over, “The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.”
Precisely!! Not one has proven personality at zero acquaintance is not valid or false. Nor does it say, “if its a science you should be able to prove it to a blind man.”
Thank you, Jeff! Great source 🙂
I would add that, evaluating something on the basis of which journal published the article, sounds like an ad hominem. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. If the study has clear parameters, and was conducted under accepted scientific study standards, then the publisher shouldn’t matter. JMHO.
>sounds like an ad hominem
A little Latin never hurt anyone, so…
If what is being done is attacking a person rather than the point, then it’s ad hominem, as many people know. But raising objections based on the journal of publication might be better translated into Latin as contra commentarium 🙂 They didn’t have scholarly journals back in ancient Rome (where Latin flourished), but they had scrolls and commentaries (such as Caesar’s on the Gallic Wars). (somehow Latin never comes across as all that funny, even when it is, like this).
Thank you Russ. I can always use a bit more education… in Latin. <3
Jeff – it seems to me that you are using your credential as a scientist and your understanding of the scientific method to try to criticize the idea of facial profiling. I don’t see the value of either in the discussion because it’s not faulting the actual science, rather you are faulting the journals, or the fact that one journal published an article that had to be retracted, but I don’t see the trail to these articles (or any others). If the science is faulty – and that’s distinctly possible – then I’m very interested in seeing the evidence.
A LOT of science does not hold up under independent investigation, but that has no bearing on other findings that do hold up. One researcher, John P. A. Ioannidis, published a paper that “most scientific findings are false”. This is a serious problem in science. Here is his paper: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. There is a lot more about this that I’m sure you already know 🙂
Where is the evidence that the claim that facial profiling is false, and how valid is it? Given that facial profiling has been repeatedly tested and shown to have consistent results significantly above chance, it will take quite a lot to show that it’s not valid, but that’s still very possible.
If you can show that the specific studies are tainted, that’s a valid point. But guilt by association (it was not published in a top tier journal) is not a valid method of proof. The findings of facial profiling appear to hold up under independent investigations.
The question at hand is simple – does the science hold up under independent investigation? Can the hypotheses of facial profiling be used to make predictions, and if so, how valid are those predictions? The published research seems to show that it’s valid but not at 100% level. This appears to be true across many different demographic variables.
Where is the actual science to show that facial profiling is not valid? I have not yet seen any actual science that it is not valid, though I would be very interested to see it.
Related – I have a degree in math, and was on the university math competition team, scoring first place in two of four annual competitions. I also have a degree in music (speciality is violin) from a School of Music. For example, I’ve correctly identified music on first hearing that I did not even know existed. That’s a very highly developed skill. Most people – I suspect even most musicians – can’t do that, but I have done it many times. My understanding of facial profiling is similar – most people are “normal” and are extremely skeptical, but someone like Eyes claims she can do it like a champ and posts on her blog as evidence. The fact that others have trouble or fail or do not believe it’s even possible does not invalidate the skills of those who can do it, just like my skills in music and math.
Thus, I’m very interested in the actual science you or anyone may be aware of that facial profiling is not valid – that no one can actually do it. Show us the facial profiling equivalent of the Michelson–Morley experiment (that showed the current understanding (back then) of aether did not exist). Please share what you have, I’m sure many people would be very interested.
Great comment, Russ.
I think one of the problems that people have with facial profiling is that it seems so similar to so many other widely discredited techniques, such as phrenology, and they worry about the implications of how something like this might be applied. Would it be extended to include some kind of “pre-crime” law enforcement where a person is judged guilty for an act they had not yet committed, and might never commit? These fears are reasonable, but I find that they do tend to cloud a person’s judgment around the issue. A lot of people would feel more comfortable ignoring this particular technique as a possibility and going on with life as it existed prior than accept the risks inherent with acknowledging it.
Edit: And I certainly don’t take issue with scientists not accepting that it’s definitely real until there is definite proof through rigorously designed, carefully conducted studies. I would only add to non-scientists that science not having confirmed something as real doesn’t mean it isn’t real until they do– it only means it hasn’t been confirmed. Which also doesn’t mean that any old thing is real that science hasn’t confirmed. The proper balance there is difficult to articulate. 🙂
To me, it is a tool. It can be applied well or poorly, constructively or destructively, all depending upon who uses it and what they choose to use it for.
But the reality is that it exists and people are already using it for both good and bad. Criminals use it in selecting victims. Child molesters use it in selecting victims who are less likely to resist or report them. Robbers use it in selecting weak victims who will be too afraid to fight back. Serial killers use it in selecting vulnerable targets. Powerful people use it to manipulate people into giving them power. Successfully corrupt people use it to manipulate the way people perceive them by building up character witnesses who will cast doubt over anyone who calls them out. Police use it to help guide them to the most likely guilty party. Salesmen use it to gauge which sales technique will be the most successful in getting you to buy something you’re on the fence about buying. It already exists and is being used both for and against us. To me, acknowledging that it’s there equips us to be able to use it for our advantage, and arms us against its being used against us, but that’s not something that certain kinds of people will be able to accept easily for a variety of reasons.
Well said, Keith!
Keith, I have a couple of experiments for you:
Face profile Stephen Hawking, Newton and Einstein. Pinpoint the set of traits they share by which we could have predicted they would be so smart ( to say the least! ).
Do the same with Washington, Bolivar and Bonaparte. Why we could have guessed they would become leaders of their people?
Also, remember that Eyes is tested and certified as able to detect microexpressions live. Nothing else.
Microexpression are there for us all to see; only some of us can see them only with the the help of slow motion camera.
Facial traits are also there for us all to see. The conclusions we draw from them as to what the subjects’ personality traits are is what I don’t suscribe.
Hence, in effect, there is nothing to be blind to.
Well, to correct part of what you said, Eyes is not tested in micro-expressions, she’s tested in her ability to discern deception vs. truth, which only partly, and sometimes involves micro-expressions. Most people don’t actually make micro-expressions, it’s not all that common. Subtle-expressions are far more common, and more useful in discerning deception, generally speaking. Subtle-expressions are often confused with micro-expressions because “micro” means small, and subtle-expressions are very minute, or partial, or partial and minute versions of their full expression counterparts.
One of the things that anyone who isn’t a truth wizard has to do in order to accurately determine whether someone is lying is establish a baseline of behavior and speech patterns under known circumstances. This is why when a polygraph is administered, it begins with simple questions asking known information, to establish that baseline– i.e., how someone acts when they are being honest while being connected to the polygraph. Interrogators do the same thing as best they can, using intelligence gathering, or evidence gathered during the course of an investigation. It’s why when police are looking for a criminal, they purposely leave out key details of the crime so that when they have a suspect, they can throw in subtle bits of that information to see how the suspect responds when asked about it. An innocent person won’t know the difference between the real evidence and fake evidence, but the real perpetrator will, so they’ll have different reactions.
Truth wizards don’t have to establish that baseline, because it’s built in to them– they can just look at a person and know right up front how that person is likely to behave and respond, which cuts out the need for establishing that baseline that the rest of us have to do. They can identify when someone is introverted, or when they’re inherently anxious vs. when anxiety is outside the norm for them. That’s how they can quickly hone in on whether they’re being honest or not with very little background information.
I can’t find the original source now, but Maureen O’Sullivan, who was the lead researcher in the “Wizards Project”, has talked about this ability when discussing the truth wizards she’d identified. In it, O’Sullivan talked about how several of her truth wizards were able to identify 8 personality traits just from a photo of someone they’d never seen before. It should be obvious that the number 8 there is rather arbitrary, but that’s the number that I recall her mentioning. It might have been from a speaking engagement she had at a university that you may be able to find on YouTube.
This is the closest I was able to find tonight.
“According to O’Sullivan, wizards are highly motivated to understand human behavior and have vast experience with different types of people. These abilities plus their knowledge of human behavior allow wizards to describe highly accurate details about the person in question just by looking at his or her picture or examining a few seconds of video.” – http://www.facscodinggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ve-newsletter-volume-1_issue-3-october-2010-final.pdf
Hi Keith. You are right. Eyes was tested at detecting lies. And I believe she is great at it. I stand corrected.
But, in this post what she essentially did was to predict behavior from analyzing photographs. She writes “No one can ever conclusively predict behavior. We can only say one has a higher propensity for certain behaviors.” Which is the same as claiming that she can do it, with some degree of accuracy. Well, we all can do that! What’s her degree of innacuracy? Nobody knows! She hasn’t been tested at it.
The thing that you’re not quite understanding is that this is exactly what she’s doing when she’s detecting lies. There is no reliable sign that someone is lying– that much has been proven scientifically.
Given that there is no reliable sign that someone is lying, then how can someone like Eyes hold a 96% accuracy rating in doing so over the course of more than 7 years of almost daily blogging? Clearly she’s seeing something that science has said “isn’t there”, so there must be something there that science hasn’t identified, right? Some kind of ability to predict when a specific act or behavior reliably indicates that a specific person is lying, even when that same act or behavior doesn’t indicate that someone else is lying?
That’s the connection that you’re not making. The way that Eyes detects lying is precisely by identifying a person’s personality, and accurately predicting behaviors based on that personality just by observing them for a few moments of time. That’s the only way she can know that a particular behavior or word choice is suggestive that they’re not being honest.
I know you probably don’t see that and would rather see it proven (and believe me, so would the rest of us), but it hasn’t been to date. The only proof for it is that this is what she’s told us (and other truth wizards have told Dr. O’Sullivan) she does, alongside a 7+ year public track record and her accuracy rating. So, honest question, what does that count for to you?
Hi Keith. “Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure.”
Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this : “the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”
Because “propensity for aggression” is a personality trait, isn’t it? Apparently you know more on the subject than they do!
>The thing that you’re not quite understanding is that this [predicting behavior or assessing personality?] is exactly what she’s doing when she’s detecting lies.
Can you quote any source that equates predicting behavior or assessing personality with detecting lies? Because the thing that I’m am quite understanding is that are so full of it (arrogance), that you feel you can talk for her…
>So,
honest question, what does that count for to you?
Honest answer:
“Arrogance: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.”
Keith, in each one of your post to me and some others you have implied that you are better, smarter or more knowledgeable than me and others.
You have called me blind, unable to understand, had given me unsolicited advice or have tried to give me unsolicited lectures. Why you can’t just accept that some of us do not believe some claims made here and leave like that is beyond me.
Had you kept your hand on the mouse, I would had expressed my initial opinion and gone back to my business.
I would appreciate if you decide to do just that now. I know I will. Thanks.
I don’t speak for Eyes, I speak for myself. In other comments– including right at the top of this very thread, I’ve said that she speaks for herself and I speak for myself.
I’ve been following this blog for several years now, and it’s rare that Eyes and I don’t see things the same way, which is why it may seem that I speak for her. To be crystal clear, I don’t, and I never have. Anyone who has followed this blog for several years and read the comments can attest to that. If they’ve read it extensively, they can even attest to those rare instances where I’ve disagreed with her.
> “Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure.” — Me
> Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this : “the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”– Martin
> Because “propensity for aggression” is a personality trait, isn’t it? Apparently you know more on the subject than they do! — Martin
The propensity for aggression is not a personality trait, it’s a propensity which is the result of one or more personality traits. The personality traits associated would be things like impulsiveness, low empathy, easily frustrated, egotistic, quick-tempered, etc. The facial width-to-height ratio represents those traits, which is exactly as you quoted me saying.
If you read my comments as implying that I’m better than you, or anyone else, I have to question your ability to read subtext or understand human behavior beyond the surface at all.
I can absolutely accept that some people do not believe some claims here– to each their own. But what I will not do is allow others who read this blog to be left thinking that your ignorance is as valid as other people’s knowledge. That leads to myriad problems in the world, so I cannot in good conscience do that because I recognize that knowledge as valid, and that ignorance as ignorance.
For what it’s worth, I’m done. There is nothing more to be gained between us with further interaction on this subject. We simply disagree. Best wishes to you.
As I say living with this ability is like living in a color blind world where very few people see color. You can never prove to them that red exists, but you know it deeply and truly that is is real, and that will just have to do. People can take it or leave it. It is what it is. You either see the red or you don’t. Don’t tell us it isn’t real if you don’t understand it. Because it just shows how much you cannot see.
Bob Sutton (faculty at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford) said it very well:
“Probably the biggest single problem for human decision making is that when people have ingrained beliefs (and I would use not believing in facial profiling as an example – rc), they will put a much higher bar for evidence for things they don’t believe than for things they do believe. Confirmation-seeking bias, I think, is what social psychologists call it. Organizations can have amazingly good evidence, but it has no effect on the decisions they make if it conflicts with their ideology.”
Source: http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=33658
This from an article in the New York Times:
“Confirmation bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though, researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You can’t just drown it in facts.
“In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to debunk inaccurate political information (and I would add any type of inaccurate information – rc) can leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html
Hopefully open discussions get the truth out about any topic, and people are open to the facts, evidence and valid reasoning, as well as corrections when it is appropriate. While research has show us that can be difficult, I feel it is the best path to follow.
One thing I’ve learned is if others can’t see something (or if they see something I can’t – and that happens fairly often), I’m best served by doing what Steven Convey asked – seek first to understand, then to be understood. That has helped me tremendously in many situations 🙂
I have actually tested it, but haven’t shared the results publicly.
Oops, I forgot to reply to the rest of your comment.
Stephen Hawking is difficult to analyze because of his disease. Newton is impossible to analyze because there are no photos of him, and artistic representations, even if they’re realistic, aren’t necessarily accurate enough to convey personality traits. Einstein would be the easiest one to do.
The most obvious traits they all have in common which would suggest their later success are high intellect and unbounded curiosity. The rest comes down to luck in terms of the opportunities and the environment they were in.
There are very likely quite a few other Hawkings, Einsteins, and Newtons who lacked the necessary environment and opportunities to achieve those kinds of success in life. As far as Newton’s time, many were probably killed or died of disease, or simply never had any exposure to anyone who could tell they were gifted.
In more recent times, the rest of the Einsteins and Hawkings of the world have given us things like nuclear energy, supersonic flight, the space program, computers, modern medicine, safer cars, and all kinds of things. High intelligence isn’t always harnessed to change the world for the better either. Many times it’s harnessed for other things. Sometimes less significant things, sometimes more marketable things, sometimes destructive things. That’s why we don’t *see* many people who are like the three you listed. Also, the three you listed are likely among the very far outliers in terms of intelligence and the ability to harness that intelligence.
The three leaders you mentioned can’t be profiled for the same reason Newton can’t be profiled. You’d have to pick more modern examples. In general though, people who become leaders of their people tend to be people who have very high confidence and who are personable in some way, or who can intimidate the right people adequately. That really depends on whether you’re talking about a true leader, or a ruler though– they’re very different things, and many of the people we label as leaders are more appropriately labelled rulers. The way I see it, a leader is someone who people follow, while a ruler is someone who pushes people. Then there are a third group of people who are neither one, but who hold positions of leadership nonetheless. Hitler is an example of a ruler. JFK is an example of a leader. Bernie Madoff or Rod Blagojevich are examples of the third group.
It’s entirely understandable that you don’t subscribe to something you can’t see. That’s the case for a great many people. I think a healthy skepticism is a good thing to have. Just be careful with it because it can easily cross over from skepticism into denial, or on the other side, into blind faith.
I think that much worse than not believing something you can’t see is to believe something you can’t see that is not proven.
But something which is very ugly is arrogance! You shouldn’t go around calling people blind only because they don’t share your beliefs.
You didn’t like my choice? Pick your own. If personality or behavior can be predicted from facial structure show me 3 people of any walk of life who had similar personality or behavior, and tell me which traits to look for. Any people. Then I’ll find you 3 people with those traits but without similar personality or behavior AND 3 people with similar personality or behavior sans the traits.
If you don’t feel like doing it. Don’t do it. But please, spare me your condescension.
I understand not believing something that you can’t see and hasn’t been proven– that’s fine. That’s different from telling someone who can see it and has proven it to themselves that it isn’t real. It isn’t just a belief, but it probably is something that most people can’t do. I can do it to some extent, but I’d be hard pressed to tell someone else how to do it, because I don’t quite understand how it works myself. It just does.
I also find arrogance to be ugly, I think we can agree on that. It never leads to anything good.
I’m not calling anyone blind because they don’t share my beliefs, and I never have. If I call anyone blind, it’s because they can’t see, their beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Your proposal is confusing to me, I’m not sure what you’re actually suggesting. Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure. Behavior can be predicted based on personality, but only to some degree. For instance, there are people who you can predict are likely abusive people, but that doesn’t mean they will necessarily be abusive. It only means they have a much higher propensity for being abusive. Actions are still choices.
The way that works is that personality influences the way a person perceives the world around them. The way they perceive the world around them influences the choices they make. If you perceive me as hostile, you will respond to me as though I am hostile. If you perceive me as not hostile, you will not respond to me as though I am hostile. It has much more to do with your perception than with the reality you’re perceiving.
So as another example, if you were married to someone for 30 years, and you always loved that person deeply and they were your world for those past 30 years, but then you found out today that they’d been cheating on you for the past 15 years, your feelings would change in that instant and you’d question those previous 15 years, if not all 30 years. That would happen even though yesterday that person was your world and the love of your life. Clearly it’s the perception of the relationship then that’s influencing your choices, and not the actual reality, because what you find out was happening yesterday doesn’t change what actually happened yesterday, but your feelings would dramatically change with such a revelation. Yesterday, you’d probably have been willing to move the world for your spouse, while today, you’d probably rather not ever lift a finger for them again. Yet nothing between yesterday and today would have changed except your perception.
In that example, certain personalities are likely to withdraw and become depressed. Other personalities are likely to go out and cheat on their spouse. Other personalities will seek out counseling, while still others will respond violently. There are certain personalities that will categorically never consider certain courses of action– it won’t even be on their radar– while other personalities will never consider the course of action that those first personalities would. That’s the extent to which behavior can be predicted, and the degree of likelihood of a particular behavior considered. It isn’t magic, it isn’t science, and it isn’t 100% accurate. But it can still be very accurate.
I’m sorry that you felt that my comment was condescending. It wasn’t intended to be, it was a simple response to what you’d written.
Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this :
“the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”
Apparently you know more on the subject than they do!
I did a video about the Truth Wizards test, in particular the mathematics behind it, and Eyes posted it on her blog. That can be found here:
https://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2013/11/how-easy-was-the-truth-wizard-test/
Hi Russ. I watched it and liked it. It’s interesting and entertaining. Thank you!
I was NOT tested and certified to see MICROEXPRESSIONS. I was tested on the whole understanding of human behavior, which they used the ability to spot deception as way to test this.
You showed us a paper a few years back on facial profiling, where I think experts were able to differentiate between criminals and non-criminals based on their photos, correct?
The pictures from the criminales were from their mug shots or when they were in prison, but they did not show their clothes. I think almost everyone can agree that mugshots pictures are not people’s best pictures. Also a person that is in prison does not have the best skin care and so they might not look their best. Think Amanda Knox’s look in prison and her look now.
Could the analysis of facial profiling be biased then?
I have a really hard time with the concept of facial profiling because I feel it can so very easily fall into being racist or creating prejudices. You see a face, and then from that infer so many things about the person, without really knowing them.
jeff: “At Cornell University, psychologist Jeffrey Valla and his colleagues set out to test just how readily people can spot criminals based on facial appearance alone. They prepared close-cropped, expressionless, facial photos of clean-shaven Caucasian men in their twenties and asked volunteers to identify the murderers, rapists, thieves, forgers, drug dealers, and so on. Men and women alike could distinguish convicts from noncriminals with above-chance accuracy…”. And yes, the pictures from the criminals were mugshots manipulated so that they didn`t evidently look so.
No doubt that study was flawed. I don’t think you can’t compare mugshots from criminals with normal head shots from supposedly non criminals and be surprised they were identified above average!
Note that the men were in their twenties, so some of them might commit a crime after the study. Were they distinguished more than average? Note also that some of the convicted men might in fact be wrongly so. Were they not distinguished more than average? No way of knowing!
Yes, scientific studies are being made in facial profiling, but nothing have been proved, and I can’t see why anything will. I find the whole concept akin to astrology.
Hi Martin,
I found your reference to the Cornell study interesting. Do you have a link to that particular paper? also what are the statistical findings of correctly identifying criminals versus those who are not from that particular study? thanks in advance
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/04/study-we-can-spot-criminals-photos
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals
Nothing has been proven? Clearly you haven’t read the scientific studies. You are remiss. https://www.eyesforlies.com/facial-profiling/the-science-of-facial-profiling/
I post a dozen studies from REPUTABLE UNIVERSITIES which have demonstrated this is a valid science.
Is this why some people seem to get busted by the police over and over again,….while a rare few criminals that might look like a more innocent type person get away with soooo much and always get away with just a warning if they’re caught at all?
For this particular study discussed in this thread Martin is right. The only thing this study proves is that people can distinguish cropped faces that originated from mug shot from those that didn’t. Or to put it another way “people who go through booking look like criminals while they’re being booked”. I know from personal experience that the emotions you feel when making a so called “neutral expression” (term used in study) during a mug shot is totally different from the neutral expression when in line at a grocery store, and I was only picked up for traffic warrants. If they used pictures of known criminal making neutral pictures in neutral situations then they might have proven something.
I’m not saying that the science of facial profiling is bad, but this particular study is bad science no matter how reputable the university is.
Hello Eyes! I went to the link and read the abstracts. They all say something like:
“Results suggest there may be a relationship between [whatever it studied].”
Sorry. That’s not proof!
Many things are called “facial profiling”. They refer to a disparate set of subject matters. Most of us are able, most of the time, to read accurately the expressions other make in response to emotions. If that is “facial profiling”, it’s irrelevant for we aren’t discussing that. What we are discussing is the possibility of accurately predicting behavior based on facial traits. It hasn’t been proven that it can be done, although some “results suggets it may be possible.”
Finally, this type of “facial profiling”, at least, is very far from being accurate!
http://www.today.com/entertainment/bearded-duck-dynasty-star-says-he-was-victim-facial-profiling-6C10945730
Hi Martin,
Here are actual excerpts from the actual abstracts of a few of the articles:
“We then report two experiments in which participants, given a set of headshots of criminals and non-criminals, were able to reliably distinguish between these two groups, after controlling for the gender, race, age, attractiveness, and emotional displays, as well as any potential clues of picture origin.”
Another study:
“Not only that, but the Brock University study demonstrates that these automatic predictions can be remarkably accurate.”
Another study:
“Individuals do perform better than chance at guessing another’s personality from only facial information, providing some support for the popular belief that it is possible to assess accurately personality from faces.”
Another study:
“A limited but growing literature has shown that our impressions can be both consensual and predictive despite important social and perceptual distinctions, such as differences in culture.”
Another study:
“In most cases, the observers were able to tell which of the listeners had the “kindness gene” and which ones did not, said the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences edition of November 14 [2011]”
Another study:
“Research has shown that people are able to judge sexual orientation from faces with above-chance accuracy, but little is known about how these judgments are formed.”
The example you cite of the actor who was mistaken for a homeless man is a very good one to show how facial profiling can go wrong. Obviously the hotel staff person had no idea this was a famous actor, and mistook the man. Just because the hotel staff person was completely wrong in this situation does not prove that no one can do this skill, only that this staff person in this situation failed to demonstrate the skill. How does that prove the research is flawed? I’m not getting the connection between the two.
Hi Russ. At the link in question, Eyes listed 13 abstracts and 4 summaries of articles. 8 of the abstracts used the pattern I pointed out: “These findings suggest such and such…” None of the summaries used the patern; however, 2 of the articles themselves did use the pattern. That makes 10 out of the 17. So, I’ll rephrase that sentence of my post:
Most of them say something like:
“Results suggest there may be a relationship between [whatever it studied].”
But it doesn’t change the conclusion:
Sorry. That’s not proof!
I hope that pleases you.
>Sorry. That’s not proof!
Exactly! 🙂 Proof is the domain of nerdy math people (like me) and the results of a few of them are famous – the Pythagorean Theorem, Four Colors Suffice, the Quadratic formula, Fermat’s Last Theorem, to name a few. (Hate to disappoint anyone, but I didn’t discover any of those!)
Science does not deal with proof. Nothing is proven in any science. Ever. Things can be disproven, but not proven.
Thus what is happening in science is that evidence (and that’s what all this is regarding facial profiling) is gathered, published, criticized, refined, and the process repeats. So at this point we have evidence in the published studies and some conclusions that show us the conditions under which facial profiling works – with some caveats from the authors of the studies, and Eyes herself – on the limitations of what we know and do not know. You seem to be focusing on the caveats, which are a necessary but not sufficient part of the analysis. Please feel free to correct me if that’s not accurate.
This is *exactly* how science is supposed to work. Our understanding (of facial profiling, but any topic will work) will continue to improve as more research is done. Conclusions will be clarified, conditions for success (or failure) will be tested, and our understanding will move forward.
While science is moving forward, we already have living, breathing examples that can do the skills. The fact that science can’t fully explain it yet does not mean it doesn’t exist. (the most famous example is consciousness) The fact that there is no proof – and never will be because science does not deal with proof – yields the same conclusion.
The scientific understanding of facial profiling is incomplete but sufficient to show that the skills do exist, some people can do facial profiling with a degree of accuracy that significantly surpasses random chance, and that more study is definitely warranted.
PS – personal note – I stink at facial profiling. You don’t want me doing it, I’ll be wrong way more than 50% of the time. I’d be better off flipping a coin. But the science shows other people can do it, and have consistent and reliable results. I trust the evidence, not my own skills 🙂
Hi, Russ! I stand corrected. I’ll rephrase: I don’t see any evidence that it is possible to draw conclusions with some useful degree of accuracy regarding the personality of a subject by analyzing a photograph. Much less predict behavior.
Research is being carried on. The acceptance of those results by the scientific community depends on the methodologies and data used. I only read the study that used mug shots. In my
opinion its findings are worthless. I agree with Tracker when he says that what “the study proves is that people can distinguish cropped faces that originated from mug shot from those that didn’t.” Since Keith D. stated that “it’s more likely that a mug shot will show a person without whatever mask they’d normally wear,” and according to this view they were compared to people wearing their masks, I tend to believe that he would agree with us on the fact that this study was flawed; unless, of course, that he doesn’t mind because it supports his opinion…
Let me correct you this time, you wrote: “science
shows other people can do it [facial profiling]”. Wrong. Science doesn’t show anything. Some experiments do show better
than random success at some tasks, under certain situations. Are those situations neutral enough as to draw valid conclusions from those results? If you believe so, I can live with that. I don’t think so. Can you live with it?
Hi Martin,
Corrections always appreciated. It is true that science doesn’t show anything, I did overstate there. My conclusions from the experiments is that there is sufficient evidence to show that some people can do facial profiling and draw valid conclusions under certain situations. It’s also clear that your conclusion is that you don’t think so. Yes, I can live with that 🙂
“I tend to believe that he would agree with us on the fact that this study was flawed…”
I do agree– that is a substantial flaw with that particular study. The control photos would have to have been taken under the same photographic conditions for the results to be more reliable. I don’t consider post-processing to make a mug shot appear not to be a mug shot valid in the least.
For example, most professional portraits are taken with a long focal length lens at a distance which frames the subject’s face similarly to a close-up mug shot taken at a police station (or driver’s license or passport photo) in order to minimize the apparent visual distortion of facial features.
On the other hand, if the control photos used were driver’s license or passport photos, that would eliminate much of that flaw, as the photos would all have been taken under similar conditions with similar or identical equipment. I have no idea whether that was the case with that study or not. You could always try contacting the study authors and asking if you were interested. I’ve done that in the past when I’ve read studies that I thought were weak or flawed. Sometimes I find that it was the paper which was flawed, not the study itself. Other times, I’ve found that the study itself was flawed.
Post processing and focal lens length are not the major flaws in this study. It’s the emotional state one is in when getting a mug shot taken vs getting a driver license photo taken. The researchers would need to obtain driver license or passport photos of the criminals, not the controls, in order for this study to be valid.
In my personal experience, emotional state doesn’t really affect facial profiling in most cases, although more pronounced expressions can certainly make it difficult (for me). Most people in mug shots aren’t showing pronounced emotional expressions though.
It would be better still to have a photo from both prior and after a crime has been committed. But even then, you still run into the problem of whether or not a particular person has committed a crime that they have never been caught or convicted of. You can’t ever rule that out no matter how careful the study design is, so any study of differentiating between criminals and non-criminals is automatically going to be flawed at least in that way. There’s also the possibility of someone being convicted of a crime they’re innocent of.
This kind of study could never definitively prove anything, but strong correlations beyond statistical norms can still be useful.
Perhaps “emotional state” is not a good term to use. I’ve read in one of Paul Eckman’s books a long time ago that emotions, especially intense ones, last only for a short period. Moods can last for days or months.
So I would argue there is a certain type of mood someone would probably be in when getting a mug shot taken, and that people can detect that mood even if they don’t consciously aware of why (they just happen to look like criminals), and I would offer this study as proof of my hypothesis.
Satoshi Kanazawa of Psychology Today (the 2nd of 3 links that Russ provided) argues that the reason the people in this study could differentiate criminals vs non-criminal but couldn’t differentiate between the type of criminals (the forgers from the rapists from the murderers ect) because “criminals don’t specialize”. To me that sounds absurd, and I would need some good solid evidence to give that theory consideration (like this study repeated with driver license photos instead).
As far as “emotional state doesn’t really affect facial profiling in most cases” I think Eye’s would have to disagree. In her Order A Facial Profile page she has a stipulation about the photos you submit; “They must appear as they normally do–in their normal state, comfortable and relaxed”. I think that would disqualify mug shots (unless it’s about the 20th mugshot some has had taken).
Tracker, I disagree with you. Keith is correct that emotional state doesn’t affect facial profiling in most cases. It can, but its not typical.
I’ll try to elaborate a little on what Eyes says in her reply below.
Emotions are fleeting, moods are stretched out over longer terms. Moods don’t have exaggerated expressions the way emotional expressions do– the expressions that signify a mood are relatively subtle by comparison. They can definitely be seen, as most people have at one time or another looked at someone they know and thought, “wow, they’re in a bad mood today”, even if that person isn’t in a moment where something bad is happening to them.
The reason why moods and emotional expressions don’t generally affect facial profiling is because each personality type has certain moods and emotions that they’re prone to experience in day to day life. In other words, each personality will have moods and emotions typical to their individual personality. It’s uncommon that a situation will occur where most people will react in a manner which is atypical to their personality, which is where the mood or emotional expression could cause it to go wrong.
If you think of a person that you know who is known to be always lighthearted and cheery, and think of another person who is known to always be a sourpuss and bitter about everything, you can see that those states are typical for each of those people. But if you reverse those and see the person who is always a sourpuss being lighthearted and cheery, you can easily see that it’s an atypical state for that person. Likewise, the lighthearted and cheery person being a sourpuss and bitter about everything will also be clearly atypical for that person. Those are usually very easy to identify with most people.
But there are other people who are difficult to read and profile in detail, and atypical moods for those people can sometimes be difficult to identify as atypical. The people who are at the polar ends of a spectrum are easy to identify, but there are a small but significant number of people who fall more in the middle of the spectrum who make it difficult or impossible to differentiate those things with. That can cause problems and lead to errors.
I don’t know this, but I strongly suspect that the people for whom mood can sometimes affect facial profiling would be the people who Eyes would describe as “neutral” people, or “negative” people, borrowing her own definition of the words “neutral” and “negative” in those contexts. I don’t think facial profiling would tend to be prone to error with who she describes as “positive” people, but I could be mistaken. She is much better at facial profiling than I am in my experience. I’m more prone to error.
Regarding the link to the actor supposedly mistaken for a homeless, you totally missed the point.
It just illustrated the fact that too many things are called “facial profile”, some of which obviously may lead us to draw the wrong conclusions.
Thanks for the clarification, it is appreciated.
I’ll let Eyes answer this for you, but I’ll throw in my own experience.
Facial profiling doesn’t involve biases or prejudices– although those can interfere with it, which means that in order to do facial profiling with any accuracy, you’d need to be someone who’s able to sort out and discount your biases and prejudices. Not everyone can readily do that, so I suspect a lot of people would be prone to error if they attempted it.
As far as mug shot photos not showing people looking their best goes– this is true. But when that person doesn’t look their best, they simply look like that person not looking their best– they don’t generally look like someone else entirely. In fact, because of the nature of a mug shot, I think it’s more likely that they’ll look like themselves, rather than the well-manicured, controlled version of themselves that they’d normally put forward. In other words, it’s more likely that a mug shot will show a person without whatever mask they’d normally wear. So for example, when I see a picture of someone when they’re haggard, I see that person, but I see them as they look when they’re haggard– their fundamental personality doesn’t change, only their present circumstances do (“present circumstances” in terms of when the photo was taken in this case).
It would be similar to suddenly giving someone a lot of power, or money, or getting them very drunk. These things don’t change who the person is, they simply reveal that part of who the person is that isn’t ordinarily seen.
If you don’t have experience or a natural talent for facial profiling, then it’s easy to imagine that you’d overestimate what you can actually see by looking at someone’s face. Try an experiment though and test it out for yourself. Look through photos of your friends on Facebook or similar, and ask yourself for each one, “is this person an introvert or an extrovert?” This one is usually pretty easy to pick out, so you should have some good success with it. Then, if you want to really test your skill, try it with friends of your friends– people who they know well but you don’t– and ask them to tell you how well you do.
What someone like Eyes does with facial profiling is essentially the same thing, except multiplied by like a thousand. It’s very quick and very accurate, but not simple, and probably easy to misunderstand exactly what it can and can’t do. At least that’s based on my own experience.
I think the hardest part about facial profiling is telling a blind man about it. If he can’t see it, he will not believe it exists. When you see it, you absolutely know it is there and valid. There is nothing voodoo about it. If you read the science articles I linked to, it shows the validity scientifically. https://www.eyesforlies.com/facial-profiling/the-science-of-facial-profiling/ Scroll down the link.
I would argue most of the journals that publish these papers are
second or third tier. The only one which is a first tier is the journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Check it out in Google Scholar.
I am a scientist. I have a good idea about what publishing in second or first tier journals mean. Many studies that are botched get published
in second tier journals all the time. A lot of top universities do it.
For instance, Princeton recently published in a journal a study
about social media that was later widely ridiculed:
http://socialnewsdaily.com/22983/facebook-beautifully-debunks-princeton-study-predicts-schools-demise/
I think it’s valid to question how these studies were made, and honestly
question their validity. If it’s science you should be able to prove it to a blind man. If it’s accurate, your study should be sound and valid any where you present, right?
Jeff — I question what scientist you are to say, “if its a science you should be able to prove it to a blind man.”
Anyone who knows science knows that research takes years and years to prove hypothesis in concrete terms and sometimes it never does. That doesn’t mean it is not valid.
As a society we make many decisions for our medical care, diet and other elements in our life based on research–research that is suggestive but NOT concrete as you suggest.
I suspect because you can see this, you just want to put it down.
thanks eyes for your response. I appreciate it.
So if you researched something for years and yet you can’t prove or confirm your claims, why would your claim be valid?
What difference would your claims have to a belief?
From wikipedia on the scientific method: “scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it
has been confirmed […]
Researchers have given their lives for this vision”
–jeff, The benevolent Scientist 😉
To which I reply a very different definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method
“Scientific Method: principles and procedures for
the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and
formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and
experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses”
I would add that, evaluating something on the basis of which journal published the article, sounds like an ad hominem. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. If the study has clear parameters, and was conducted under accepted scientific study standards, then the publisher shouldn’t matter. JMHO.
>sounds like an ad hominem
A little Latin never hurt anyone, so…
If what is being done is attacking a person rather than the point, then it’s ad hominem, as many people know. But raising objections based on the journal of publication might be better translated into Latin as contra commentarium 🙂 They didn’t have scholarly journals back in ancient Rome (where Latin flourished), but they had scrolls and commentaries (such as Caesar’s on the Gallic Wars). (somehow Latin never comes across as all that funny, even when it is, like this).
Thank you Russ. I can always use a bit more education… in Latin. <3
Jeff – it seems to me that you are using your credential as a scientist and your understanding of the scientific method to try to criticize the idea of facial profiling. I don’t see the value of either in the discussion because it’s not faulting the actual science, rather you are faulting the journals, or the fact that one journal published an article that had to be retracted, but I don’t see the trail to these articles (or any others). If the science is faulty – and that’s distinctly possible – then I’m very interested in seeing the evidence.
A LOT of science does not hold up under independent investigation, but that has no bearing on other findings that do hold up. One researcher, John P. A. Ioannidis, published a paper that “most scientific findings are false”. This is a serious problem in science. Here is his paper: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Where is the evidence that the claim that facial profiling is false? Given that it’s been repeatedly tested and shown to have consistent results significantly above chance, it will take quite a lot to show that it’s not valid, but that’s still very possible.
If you can show that the specific studies are tainted, that’s a valid point. But guilt by association (it was not published in a top tier journal) is not a valid method of proof. The findings of facial profiling appear to hold up under independent investigations.
The question at hand is simple – does the science hold up under independent investigation? Can the hypotheses of facial profiling be used to make predictions, and if so, how valid are those predictions? The published research seems to show that it’s valid but not at 100% level. This appears to be true across many different demographic variables.
Where is the actual science to show that facial profiling is not valid? I have not yet seen any actual science that it is not valid, though I would be very interested to see it.
Related – I have a degree in math, and was on the university math competition team, scoring first place in two of four annual competitions. I also have a degree in music (speciality is violin) from a School of Music. For example, I’ve correctly identified music on first hearing that I did not even know existed. That’s a very highly developed skill. Most people – I suspect even most musicians – can’t do that, but I have done it many times. My understanding of facial profiling is similar – most people are “normal” and are extremely skeptical, but someone like Eyes claims she can do it like a champ and posts on her blog as evidence. The fact that others have trouble or fail or do not believe it’s even possible does not invalidate the skills of those who can do it, just like my skills in music and math.
Thus, I’m very interested in the actual science you or anyone may be aware of that facial profiling is not valid. Please share what you have, I’m sure many people would be very interested.
Great comment, Russ.
I think one of the problems that people have with facial profiling is that it seems so similar to so many other widely discredited techniques, such as phrenology, and they worry about the implications of how something like this might be applied. Would it be extended to include some kind of “pre-crime” law enforcement where a person is judged guilty for an act they had not yet committed, and might never commit? These fears are reasonable, but I find that they do tend to cloud a person’s judgment around the issue. A lot of people would feel more comfortable ignoring this particular technique as a possibility and going on with life as it existed prior than accept the risks inherent with acknowledging it.
Edit: And I certainly don’t take issue with scientists not accepting that it’s definitely real until there is definite proof through rigorously designed, carefully conducted studies. I would only add to non-scientists that science not having confirmed something as real doesn’t mean it isn’t real until they do– it only means it hasn’t been confirmed. Which also doesn’t mean that any old thing is real that science hasn’t confirmed. The proper balance there is difficult to articulate. 🙂
To me, it is a tool. It can be applied well or poorly, constructively or destructively, all depending upon who uses it and what they choose to use it for.
But the reality is that it exists and people are already using it for both good and bad. Criminals use it in selecting victims. Child molesters use it in selecting victims who are less likely to resist or report them. Robbers use it in selecting weak victims who will be too afraid to fight back. Serial killers use it in selecting vulnerable targets. Powerful people use it to manipulate people into giving them power. Successfully corrupt people use it to manipulate the way people perceive them by building up character witnesses who will cast doubt over anyone who calls them out. Police use it to help guide them to the most likely guilty party. Salesmen use it to gauge which sales technique will be the most successful in getting you to buy something you’re on the fence about buying. It already exists and is being used both for and against us. To me, acknowledging that it’s there equips us to be able to use it for our advantage, and arms us against its being used against us, but that’s not something that certain kinds of people will be able to accept easily for a variety of reasons.
Well said, Keith!
Eyes, once again Disqus wouldn’t allow me to post with a link but there are a number of videos and photos of the pilot and co-pilot going thru security. Anything more you can see based on those?
Eyes, once again Disqus wouldn’t allow me to post with a link but there are a number of videos and photos of the pilot and co-pilot going thru security. Anything more you can see based on those?
Well, to correct part of what you said, Eyes is not tested in micro-expressions, she’s tested in her ability to discern deception vs. truth, which only partly, and sometimes involves micro-expressions. Most people don’t actually make micro-expressions, it’s not all that common. Subtle-expressions are far more common, and more useful in discerning deception, generally speaking. Subtle-expressions are often confused with micro-expressions because “micro” means small, and subtle-expressions are very minute, or partial, or partial and minute versions of their full expression counterparts.
One of the things that anyone who isn’t a truth wizard has to do in order to accurately determine whether someone is lying is establish a baseline of behavior and speech patterns under known circumstances. This is why when a polygraph is administered, it begins with simple questions asking known information, to establish that baseline– i.e., how someone acts when they are being honest while being connected to the polygraph. Interrogators do the same thing as best they can, using intelligence gathering, or evidence gathered during the course of an investigation. It’s why when police are looking for a criminal, they purposely leave out key details of the crime so that when they have a suspect, they can throw in subtle bits of that information to see how the suspect responds when asked about it. An innocent person won’t know the difference between the real evidence and fake evidence, but the real perpetrator will, so they’ll have different reactions.
Truth wizards don’t have to establish that baseline, because it’s built in to them– they can just look at a person and know right up front how that person is likely to behave and respond, which cuts out the need for establishing that baseline that the rest of us have to do. They can identify when someone is introverted, or when they’re inherently anxious vs. when anxiety is outside the norm for them. That’s how they can quickly hone in on whether they’re being honest or not with very little background information.
I can’t find the original source now, but Maureen O’Sullivan, who was the lead researcher in the “Wizards Project”, has talked about this ability when discussing the truth wizards she’d identified. In it, O’Sullivan talked about how several of her truth wizards were able to identify 8 personality traits just from a photo of someone they’d never seen before. It should be obvious that the number 8 there is rather arbitrary, but that’s the number that I recall her mentioning. It might have been from a speaking engagement she had at a university that you may be able to find on YouTube.
This is the closest I was able to find tonight.
“According to O’Sullivan, wizards are highly motivated to understand human behavior and have vast experience with different types of people. These abilities plus their knowledge of human behavior allow wizards to describe highly accurate details about the person in question just by looking at his or her picture or examining a few seconds of video.” – http://www.facscodinggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ve-newsletter-volume-1_issue-3-october-2010-final.pdf
Hi Keith. You are right. Eyes was tested at detecting lies. And I believe she is great at it. I stand corrected.
But, in this post what she essentially did was to predict behavior from analyzing photographs. She writes “No one can ever conclusively predict behavior. We can only say one has a higher propensity for certain behaviors.” Which is the same as claiming that she can do it, with some degree of accuracy. Well, we all can do that! What’s her degree of innacuracy? Nobody knows! She hasn’t been tested at it.
The thing that you’re not quite understanding is that this is exactly what she’s doing when she’s detecting lies. There is no reliable sign that someone is lying– that much has been proven scientifically.
Given that there is no reliable sign that someone is lying, then how can someone like Eyes hold a 96% accuracy rating in doing so over the course of more than 7 years of almost daily blogging? Clearly she’s seeing something that science has said “isn’t there”, so there must be something there that science hasn’t identified, right? Some kind of ability to predict when a specific act or behavior reliably indicates that a specific person is lying, even when that same act or behavior doesn’t indicate that someone else is lying?
That’s the connection that you’re not making. The way that Eyes detects lying is precisely by identifying a person’s personality, and accurately predicting behaviors based on that personality just by observing them for a few moments of time. That’s the only way she can know that a particular behavior or word choice is suggestive that they’re not being honest.
I know you probably don’t see that and would rather see it proven (and believe me, so would the rest of us), but it hasn’t been to date. The only proof for it is that this is what she’s told us (and other truth wizards have told Dr. O’Sullivan) she does, alongside a 7+ year public track record and her accuracy rating. So, honest question, what does that count for to you?
Hi Keith. “Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure.”
Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this : “the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”
Because “propensity for aggression” is a personality trait, isn’t it? Apparently you know more on the subject than they do!
>The thing that you’re not quite understanding is that this [predicting behavior or assessing personality?] is exactly what she’s doing when she’s detecting lies.
Can you quote any source that equates predicting behavior or assessing personality with detecting lies? Because the thing that I’m am quite understanding is that are so full of it (arrogance), that you feel you can talk for her…
>So,
honest question, what does that count for to you?
Honest answer:
“Arrogance: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.”
Keith, in each one of your post to me and some others you have implied that you are better, smarter or more knowledgeable than me and others.
You have called me blind, unable to understand, had given me unsolicited advice or have tried to give me unsolicited lectures. Why you can’t just accept that some of us do not believe some claims made here and leave like that is beyond me.
Had you kept your hand on the mouse, I would had expressed my initial opinion and gone back to my business.
I would appreciate if you decide to do just that now. I know I will. Thanks.
I don’t speak for Eyes, I speak for myself. In other comments– including right at the top of this very thread, I’ve said that she speaks for herself and I speak for myself.
I’ve been following this blog for several years now, and it’s rare that Eyes and I don’t see things the same way, which is why it may seem that I speak for her. To be crystal clear, I don’t, and I never have. Anyone who has followed this blog for several years and read the comments can attest to that. If they’ve read it extensively, they can even attest to those rare instances where I’ve disagreed with her.
> “Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure.” — Me
> Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this : “the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”– Martin
> Because “propensity for aggression” is a personality trait, isn’t it? Apparently you know more on the subject than they do! — Martin
The propensity for aggression is not a personality trait, it’s a propensity which is the result of one or more personality traits. The personality traits associated would be things like impulsiveness, low empathy, easily frustrated, egotistic, quick-tempered, etc. The facial width-to-height ratio represents those traits, which is exactly as you quoted me saying.
If you read my comments as implying that I’m better than you, or anyone else, I have to question your ability to read subtext or understand human behavior beyond the surface at all.
I can absolutely accept that some people do not believe some claims here– to each their own. But what I will not do is allow others who read this blog to be left thinking that your ignorance is as valid as other people’s knowledge. That leads to myriad problems in the world, so I cannot in good conscience do that because I recognize that knowledge as valid, and that ignorance as ignorance.
For what it’s worth, I’m done. There is nothing more to be gained between us with further interaction on this subject. We simply disagree. Best wishes to you.
As I say living with this ability is like living in a color blind world where very few people see color. You can never prove to them that red exists, but you know it deeply and truly that is is real, and that will just have to do. People can take it or leave it. It is what it is. You either see the red or you don’t. Don’t tell us it isn’t real if you don’t understand it. Because it just shows how much you cannot see.
Bob Sutton (faculty at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford) said it very well:
“Probably the biggest single problem for human decision making is that when people have ingrained beliefs (and I would use not believing in facial profiling as an example – rc), they will put a much higher bar for evidence for things they don’t believe than for things they do believe. Confirmation-seeking bias, I think, is what social psychologists call it. Organizations can have amazingly good evidence, but it has no effect on the decisions they make if it conflicts with their ideology.”
Source: http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=33658
This from an article in the New York Times:
“Confirmation bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though, researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You can’t just drown it in facts.
“In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to debunk inaccurate political information (and I would add any type of inaccurate information – rc) can leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html
Hopefully open discussions get the truth out about any topic, and people are open to the facts, evidence and valid reasoning, as well as corrections when it is appropriate. While research has show us that can be difficult, I feel it is the best path to follow.
One thing I’ve learned is if others can’t see something (or if they see something I can’t – and that happens fairly often), I’m best served by doing what Steven Convey asked – seek first to understand, then to be understood. That has helped me tremendously in many situations 🙂
I have actually tested it, but haven’t shared the results publicly.
Oops, I forgot to reply to the rest of your comment.
Stephen Hawking is difficult to analyze because of his disease. Newton is impossible to analyze because there are no photos of him, and artistic representations, even if they’re realistic, aren’t necessarily accurate enough to convey personality traits. Einstein would be the easiest one to do.
The most obvious traits they all have in common which would suggest their later success are high intellect and unbounded curiosity. The rest comes down to luck in terms of the opportunities and the environment they were in.
There are very likely quite a few other Hawkings, Einsteins, and Newtons who lacked the necessary environment and opportunities to achieve those kinds of success in life. As far as Newton’s time, many were probably killed or died of disease, or simply never had any exposure to anyone who could tell they were gifted.
In more recent times, the rest of the Einsteins and Hawkings of the world have given us things like nuclear energy, supersonic flight, the space program, computers, modern medicine, safer cars, and all kinds of things. High intelligence isn’t always harnessed to change the world for the better either. Many times it’s harnessed for other things. Sometimes less significant things, sometimes more marketable things, sometimes destructive things. That’s why we don’t *see* many people who are like the three you listed. Also, the three you listed are likely among the very far outliers in terms of intelligence and the ability to harness that intelligence.
The three leaders you mentioned can’t be profiled for the same reason Newton can’t be profiled. You’d have to pick more modern examples. In general though, people who become leaders of their people tend to be people who have very high confidence and who are personable in some way, or who can intimidate the right people adequately. That really depends on whether you’re talking about a true leader, or a ruler though– they’re very different things, and many of the people we label as leaders are more appropriately labelled rulers. The way I see it, a leader is someone who people follow, while a ruler is someone who pushes people. Then there are a third group of people who are neither one, but who hold positions of leadership nonetheless. Hitler is an example of a ruler. JFK is an example of a leader. Bernie Madoff or Rod Blagojevich are examples of the third group.
It’s entirely understandable that you don’t subscribe to something you can’t see. That’s the case for a great many people. I think a healthy skepticism is a good thing to have. Just be careful with it because it can easily cross over from skepticism into denial, or on the other side, into blind faith.
I think that much worse than not believing something you can’t see is to believe something you can’t see that is not proven.
But something which is very ugly is arrogance! You shouldn’t go around calling people blind only because they don’t share your beliefs.
You didn’t like my choice? Pick your own. If personality or behavior can be predicted from facial structure show me 3 people of any walk of life who had similar personality or behavior, and tell me which traits to look for. Any people. Then I’ll find you 3 people with those traits but without similar personality or behavior AND 3 people with similar personality or behavior sans the traits.
If you don’t feel like doing it. Don’t do it. But please, spare me your condescension.
I understand not believing something that you can’t see and hasn’t been proven– that’s fine. That’s different from telling someone who can see it and has proven it to themselves that it isn’t real. It isn’t just a belief, but it probably is something that most people can’t do. I can do it to some extent, but I’d be hard pressed to tell someone else how to do it, because I don’t quite understand how it works myself. It just does.
I also find arrogance to be ugly, I think we can agree on that. It never leads to anything good.
I’m not calling anyone blind because they don’t share my beliefs, and I never have. If I call anyone blind, it’s because they can’t see, their beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Your proposal is confusing to me, I’m not sure what you’re actually suggesting. Personality isn’t predicted from facial structure, it’s represented by facial structure. Behavior can be predicted based on personality, but only to some degree. For instance, there are people who you can predict are likely abusive people, but that doesn’t mean they will necessarily be abusive. It only means they have a much higher propensity for being abusive. Actions are still choices.
The way that works is that personality influences the way a person perceives the world around them. The way they perceive the world around them influences the choices they make. If you perceive me as hostile, you will respond to me as though I am hostile. If you perceive me as not hostile, you will not respond to me as though I am hostile. It has much more to do with your perception than with the reality you’re perceiving.
So as another example, if you were married to someone for 30 years, and you always loved that person deeply and they were your world for those past 30 years, but then you found out today that they’d been cheating on you for the past 15 years, your feelings would change in that instant and you’d question those previous 15 years, if not all 30 years. That would happen even though yesterday that person was your world and the love of your life. Clearly it’s the perception of the relationship then that’s influencing your choices, and not the actual reality, because what you find out was happening yesterday doesn’t change what actually happened yesterday, but your feelings would dramatically change with such a revelation. Yesterday, you’d probably have been willing to move the world for your spouse, while today, you’d probably rather not ever lift a finger for them again. Yet nothing between yesterday and today would have changed except your perception.
In that example, certain personalities are likely to withdraw and become depressed. Other personalities are likely to go out and cheat on their spouse. Other personalities will seek out counseling, while still others will respond violently. There are certain personalities that will categorically never consider certain courses of action– it won’t even be on their radar– while other personalities will never consider the course of action that those first personalities would. That’s the extent to which behavior can be predicted, and the degree of likelihood of a particular behavior considered. It isn’t magic, it isn’t science, and it isn’t 100% accurate. But it can still be very accurate.
I’m sorry that you felt that my comment was condescending. It wasn’t intended to be, it was a simple response to what you’d written.
Please, explain that to the researchers who wrote this :
“the facial width-to-height ratio may be a cue used to predict propensity for aggression in others.”
Apparently you know more on the subject than they do!
I did a video about the Truth Wizards test, in particular the mathematics behind it, and Eyes posted it on her blog. That can be found here:
https://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2013/11/how-easy-was-the-truth-wizard-test/
Hi Russ. I watched it and liked it. It’s interesting and entertaining. Thank you!
I don’t know about facial profiling, but I see two different types of personalities when I look at these two. If I had to approach one of them for help, I would choose to go to the pilot, not the co-pilot. The pilot has an open, friendly look. I don’t sense a lot of hidden secrets with him. With the co-pilot, I sense hidden feelings and many emotions. His half-hearted attempt to smile comes across to me as not genuine. His eyes appear to be veiled and not open to the people who are around him. I wonder if he has long since lost the ability to see everyone as someone with feelings, families, and a value to other people and this world.
I don’t know about facial profiling, but I see two different types of personalities when I look at these two. If I had to approach one of them for help, I would choose to go to the pilot, not the co-pilot. The pilot has an open, friendly look. I don’t sense a lot of hidden secrets with him. With the co-pilot, I sense hidden feelings and many emotions. His half-hearted attempt to smile comes across to me as not genuine. His eyes appear to be veiled and not open to the people who are around him. I wonder if he has long since lost the ability to see everyone as someone with feelings, families, and a value to other people and this world.
I was NOT tested and certified to see MICROEXPRESSIONS. I was tested on the whole understanding of human behavior, which they used the ability to spot deception as way to test this.
Although this article does not, for me, satisfactorily address the lack of cell phone communication by passengers (like “good bye, and I love you”), it is still a well written theory from a pilot’s perspective.
wired.COM/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire
Although this article does not, for me, satisfactorily address the lack of cell phone communication by passengers (like “good bye, and I love you”), it is still a well written theory from a pilot’s perspective.
wired.COM/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire
When I look at the pilot, I see a friendly person- one that can be very warm and caring – and who usually is most of the time. But I also see someone who thinks of himself first and doesn’t like to have his routine interrupted…he’s the boss because he’s smarter than you are. He thinks he can hide that side of himself from others – that he’s really good at fooling people – but those that know him know better.
Looking at the co-pilot, I see someone who’s young and easily manipulated – he really wants to believe the best of people because he’s never really been burned. He looks the type that will do just about anything for money if he didn’t think he’d be caught.
When I look at the pilot, I see a friendly person- one that can be very warm and caring – and who usually is most of the time. But I also see someone who thinks of himself first and doesn’t like to have his routine interrupted…he’s the boss because he’s smarter than you are. He thinks he can hide that side of himself from others – that he’s really good at fooling people – but those that know him know better.
Looking at the co-pilot, I see someone who’s young and easily manipulated – he really wants to believe the best of people because he’s never really been burned. He looks the type that will do just about anything for money if he didn’t think he’d be caught.