"Mind in the Eyes Test"

Post Reply New Topic

Simon Baron-Cohen devised a test called the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test" (or more shortly the "Mind in the Eyes Test") to determine how well people can read subtle facial expressions. You look at 36 pairs of eyes and choose a corresponding emotion or state of mind from 4 choices. A version of the test can be accessed at

http://www.questionwriter.com/samples/eyesquiz/

I took it several times and got 18 out of 36 every time (which is surprising since I'm sure I didn't guess the same answer for each set of eyes every time). The population average is 26.2, and the average for an adult with AS or HFA is 21.9.

Therefore, while I did quite significantly better than chance (1/4=9/36), I got almost as far below the AS/HFA average as that is below the population average. This may explain why, although I can converse quite well and can make friends relatively easily, I have a hard time with things like dating. I'm curious how others on here do on this test.

23.
w/ about 6 what the bleep is that
and w/ about 3 there's no bleeping ways

in other words, 3 failures to reply and 6 doubtful guesses.
My 'doubtful guesses' mainly centered around the word or attribute that I would have chose-being absent, but a 'similar' attribute being there within a stretch of the guess.

My 3 failures were simply as I stated 'no way in h*ll' were any of those answers even vaguely resembing.

About 10 were Too Clear-I got those all right.

What I thought about while taking the test was, 'but, "who are these people normally, on average, as an overview' And how that would taint the test-long term facial skin memories. For instance, a long term daily criminal with a 'playful' look might come out looking 'hostile'. A person told to look "whatever" might be 'thinking' something else, 'being' something else. The girl who was told to fantasize, might be 'fantasizing' about how 'irritating' every one else is.

My personal opinion: I strongly doubt the validity of this test for ANY real purpose other than teaching YOUNG children the difference between fear and happiness and anger.

For these reasons: The world and it's cultures are too varied. Age. Color. Sex. Facial arrangement. Goodness-makeup! Context and conversation is absent.

Continued: To understand the intended expressions of these actors it's my stance that the onlooker would HAVE to have a comprehensive overview of what each attribute 'looks like' within every age group, every age and sex group, and every age, sex, and racial group--across the world. In my country, though on new educational horizons, this type of world concern has been largely absent, even frowned on.

Also: I noted the absence of pain
And: I noted that one of my 3 failures to answer for lack of data was on a man with small hazel eyes. I have small hazel eyes. The attribute turned out to be 'suspicious'. I hope this is not used as a training board for law enforecement as the normals I know would tend to 'learn' this as 'people with small hazel eyes are suspicious'

In which case, correct, I would be .....bleeeeeeeeeee*ed.

Also: I had some difficulty identifying any female eye attributes (prior to chosing an answer) unless they were obvious-fear. As well as did I abore choosing 'playful' on faces I considered distrustful.

I would be interested in either a full photo test OR a only eyes (only eyes) test. (and really a total mix and match of every variable globally)

great stuff

I got a 29, but it was mostly guessing. There were only a handful that looked right. Half of the time, I'd look at the choices and not know how they arrived at those answers. A lot of the "distrustful" ones looked happy to me. I don't have horrible social deficits (my Asperger's comes into play with the obsessive fixations and sensory issues), so I guess that explains it. I can usually tell a person's mood. I'm actually TOO good at detecting changes in people's tone of voice, so I guess it makes sense that I got above the average. I AM severely deficient in the realm of romance, and they didn't have any men that were flirting, so I don't know if I could detect that or not.
-OddDuckNash99-

22. thats pretty close to the aspie/HFA 21.9!

Lots of very pretty eyes in that!

24

I'm SHOCKED I got so many right. 25

Had it always provided the same possible choices, I might have gotten 0!

Steve

yres, the same for me-22, very close to the 21.9 (which as GOT to be an average, surely? how can a test like that give someone the .9?

Yes, lots of very pretty eyes.

JulieArticuno

I scored 21. Maybe if I brushed up on my vocabulary, my score would have been higher. Based on the reports here of scores closer to the average, I must be more Aspie than I thought. I'll take the test again in a few days and see if anything changes.

Same. That's why I believed I scored so highly. Like I said, I misinterpreted many of them on the first glance- the adjective that came to mind was usually absent when I saw the choices. I could mold them to the adjectives once I saw what they SAID they were, but I never would have been able to come up with those on my own! I just compensated with my high Aspie vocabulary and pattern-seeking abilities...
-OddDuckNash99-

I got 18.
Hmmm.

I got 18 as well!

I got 31. I'm getting a lot better at this.

29, surprisingly.

28. If only real life was multiple choice out of 4, I would do all right. If I'd had to make a free choice, for a lot of them I would have put 'patronizing'.

32. i'm in the lead

Got 26 on it.