|
|
|
|
|
by bloak
2992 days ago
|
|
I don't think the first test is very good. I gave it to someone who I know is good at recognising people in real life, but who is not American, has no interest in celebrities, and also never watches films, and they scored badly (3, 20% centile). The second (Australian) test seems better, but, interestingly, the person just referred to didn't do very well in it. I wonder if recognising static images of faces is a significantly different task from recognising people in real life, or even from silent video, when you can see the face in action, as it were. (There's the bizarre phenomenon, which people other than me have reported, how some people seem to consistently resemble photos of themselves, while others don't so much: they're almost a different person in photos. I think this phenomenon may also have to do with the face in action, but I'm just speculating wildly.) |
|
> There's the bizarre phenomenon, which people other than me have reported, how some people seem to consistently resemble photos of themselves, while others don't so much: they're almost a different person in photos.
I'm also just speculating wildly, but this might have something to do with (monoscopic) photography removing depth cues, which is also a factor in the phenomenon of "the camera adds ten pounds". Different lighting and some approaches to makeup and clothing can exaggerate or diminish this effect.