Face Blindness [en]

[fr] Un épisode de Radiolab qui parle de "face blindness", littéralement "être aveugle aux visages". J'ai un peu de ça (je ne reconnais pas les gens, mais je me souviens d'eux immédiatement quand ils me donnent leur nom). Episode intéressant à écouter.

I wrote some time ago about being bad with faces. I remember people, I just have trouble with faces. I’ve been paying more attention to this recently, and realized that I actually do “recognize” people — I know that I know them — but cannot “place” them or “identify” them based on their face alone.

This morning I listened to the Radiolab podcast “Strangers in the Mirror“, about face blindness (I love Radiolab).

Oliver Sacks, the famous neuroscientist and author, can’t recognize faces. Neither can Chuck Close, the great artist known for his enormous paintings of … that’s right, faces.

Oliver and Chuck–both born with the condition known as Face Blindness–have spent their lives decoding who is saying hello to them. You can sit down with either man, talk to him for an hour, and if he sees you again just fifteen minutes later, he will have no idea who you are. (Unless you have a very squeaky voice or happen to be wearing the same odd purple hat.)

Go and listen to it.

Like everything, face blindness is not all-or-nothing. I guess I have some degree of it (not as bad as Chuck or Oliver, though). My strategy is to tell people upfront. I’m also very good with names, so that helps compensate. I find myself using some of the strategies they talk about: looking for some distinctive feature in the face, making a mental note of eye colour or eyebrow shape, teeth. Some detail I can hang onto.

I’ve realized that I can in fact “recognize” or place people based on their faces, but it takes me a lot of time and energy and concentration to do so. Sometimes hours or days after I’ve seen the person. I’ll bump into somebody at the supermarket, I know I know the person, we say hi, but I have no clue who the person is. I’ll keep thinking about it, try and visualise the person (face, voice, movement, expressions) and see what context appears in my mind.

When watching movies, I’m often crap at differentiating actors that look similar. “Is this somebody we already know, or is it a new character?” Or if I see an actor in another movie/series, it can take me a long time to be certain I’ve recognized them. For example, Lisa Edelstein (who plays Dr. Cuddy in House) was playing the role of a doctor (!) in an episode of Without a Trace that I was watching a week or two ago. It took me a good 10-15 minutes to be sure this character was not the same as the in-house FBI psychiatrist (also a woman roughly the same age with long dark hair), another 10-15 to be certain I’d seen her before and realize she was Cuddy.

So, is my “problem” in the face blindness range or is it in the “link the face with the person” one? I wonder if there are any tests available for this kind of thing. I’m curious.

Similar Posts:

Power Laws, Popularity, Authority, A-Lists and the Rest… [en]

Things are colliding in my mind and slowly falling into place. A word of warning, however: contents may have settled while shipping. Here are the ingredients:

– [An “Interesting” Photograph](http://flickr.com/photos/bunny/74221361/in/set-1292259/) — of mine… that’s what started it all, actually
– [Visibility is in Feedback Loops](http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2006/02/05/visibility-is-in-feedback-loops/) — me
– [Technorati adds authority weighting](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/13/technorati-adds-authority-weighting/) — Robert Scoble
– [Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality](http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html) — Clay Shirky
– [The Science of Hit Songs](http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060209_hit_songs.html) — Bjorn Carey
– [Tips for joining the A list](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/14/tips-for-joining-the-a-list/) — Robert Scoble
– [Scoble on Tips For Joining The A-List](http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/02/scoble_on_tips_.html) — Stowe Boyd
– a paragraph in [Blogs to Riches](http://newyorkmetro.com/news/media/15967/index1.html) — Clive Thompson
– plus a few random posts and conversations… (thanks Kevin Marks)

**Popularity begets popularity**

Neige et lune 13When the photograph you see here suddenly ranked number twelve in Flickr “interestingness” for the day it was taken, I got a bunch of very appreciative comments about it. But something bothered me: it’s a nice photograph, but it’s certainly not the best photograph I’ve taken. However, it was attracting all the attention. And as it was attracting attention, it was becoming more and more “Flickr-interesting”.

Then I stayed stuck on the [Wordpress.com home page](http://wordpress.com) for a couple of days, and [watched my traffic soar up and come right back down again](http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2006/02/05/visibility-is-in-feedback-loops/). I was getting visitors because I had been labeled as “fast-growing” or whatever, not because I had suddenly become brilliant. Proof being the decrease in traffic after the peak. What’s popular becomes more popular, or stays popular, because it’s popular. At some point, just being popular is enough.

And, as I was already hinting in [my previous post on the subject](http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2006/02/05/visibility-is-in-feedback-loops/ “Same post as the one linked right above.”), it’s normal. That’s the way things go. I found confirmation of what I suspected in this article on [hit songs](http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060209_hit_songs.html). They explain that we are more likely to say we like a song if we see that others have already said they like it. Yeah, it’s not a part of us we like looking at, but we’re influenceable. It’s human. They set up an experiment with two groups which have to rate songs. One group can see ratings of other group members, but the other cannot.

In the independent condition, participants chose which songs to listen to based solely on the names of the bands and their songs. While listening to the song, they were asked to rate it from one star (“I hate it”) to five stars (“I love it”). They were also given the option of downloading the song for keeps.


In the social influence group, participants were provided with the same song list, but could also see how many times each song had been downloaded.

Researchers found that popular songs were popular and unpopular songs were unpopular, regardless of their quality established by the other group. They also found that as a particular songs’ popularity increased, participants selected it more often.

So, let’s say it so it’s said: it’s *normal* that the most “popular” blogs get the most visibility, links, and visitors. That happens because they’re popular. They don’t totally suck, of course, or they wouldn’t have got “popular enough” for the feedback loop to work in the first place, but they are helped in remaining popular by the fact they are popular. Which maybe puts pressure on some to keep the quality level up.

**Popularity or authority?**

Popular? Visited, linked, or some combination thereof. People hear about it, talk about it, go and see it. That’s popular. Popularity is pretty close to things you can measure, like how many visitors a site has (that’s the numbers you see in news articles), or how many incoming links it has (that’s what Technorati tracks).

But is that what we really want? People who blog clearly want recognition of some sort (otherwise, we wouldn’t take the trouble of writing in a public space), but is recognition in numbers really what we’re after? At LIFT’06, I heard Robert say that it wasn’t the *number* of readers of his blog that mattered, but *who* these people were. Is your readership going to come and leave without a word, or react, start conversations, influence the people around them? What matters is how your audience scales. But in some way, we’re still thinking about numbers, here: “how can I have the most influence?”

I think that what we’re really after isn’t recognition by numbers, because somewhere inside we know that numbers are fake. I can be hugely popular but still not feel recognized for who I am or what I’m worth or what I’m saying. I suspect that what we want to be recognized for is more along the lines of *authority* in a certain field (ie, what we write about). We want people to see that we have something valid to say. That we have ideas that are original or provocative or that help things move along. That we know what we’re talking about. That, for me, is authority. And that cannot be measured by incoming links, visitors, or even [conversational indexes](http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/02/the_social_scal.html).

This is why I find it increasingly disturbing that [Technorati is calling (and has been calling “authority” something which is in fact much nearer to “popularity”](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/13/technorati-adds-authority-weighting/ “Read the comments.”). It gives us the impression it’s measuring what we want (authority) when in fact it’s measuring something which is maybe more superficial (linkedness-popularity) but more measurable. So we get all worked up by the A list popularity problem, and gatekeepers, and stuff like that — when in fact being in the A list probably isn’t really what most people want. It’s confusing something qualitative (authority) with something quantitative (number of links).

**Quality and visibility**

Robert wrote a post giving [tips for joining the A list](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/14/tips-for-joining-the-a-list/), and [Stowe Boyd responded with tips of his own](http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/02/scoble_on_tips_.html), saying Robert’s were a bit superficial.

Both posts have valid tips and insights, but they run along two different lines. Robert’s post is more about “how to be more visible/become more popular” and Stowe’s is more about “being a good blogger”. Both are important. You can be a good blogger, have a good blog, but stay in the shadows more than you deserve because you’re not visible enough. And you can make yourself visible all you want, all that agitation isn’t going to bring you recognition if you don’t have “good content” (in the wide sense).

**A list thoughts**

People often think that getting mentioned in some high-traffic blog will automatically bring visibility. Not true. Robert mentioned me twice in his blog during the last week (and he actually said [really nice things](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/going-skiing-today/) about me), but that just made a bump in my stats. Not a huge peak with server overload and comments pouring in and hundreds of other links. Just a little bump. (And it’s not like I already have 5’000 readers anyway.) On the same day, Robert talked about [coComment](http://cocomment.com), also saying [really nice things](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/track-your-comments-no-matter-where-you-make-them/) , and as a result, [all hell broke loose](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/05/what-did-we-do/) and in a matter of hours, coComment was [all over the blogosphere](http://technorati.com/search/cocomment “See what Technorati says.”). Well, that’s because coComment is a major advancement for the blogosphere, and I’m not. It’s not being linked which is important — it’s what you are. (So, if you’re a post or a blog, whether you’re an interesting post or blog.)

Another interesting thing about most of these so-called “A list blogs” is that I barely read them (OK, I barely read any blogs, but that’s another story). The only reason I drop by on [Boing Boing](http://boingboing.net/) every now and again is because it’s “blog number one” and people talk about it all the time. It’s not on *my* A list. (Which isn’t to say it’s bad — it isn’t — it’s just not a compelling read for me.) [Robert’s blog](http://scobleizer.wordpress.com) was exactly the same for me until recently. I’m reading it now, but that’s because I met him at LIFT’06 and discovered he’s a really sweet person. I read his blog because I appreciate him as a person, and I’m generally interested in reading what people I like are writing.

Maybe I’m a weird blogger who doesn’t know how to recognize a great blog and only reads blogs of people she knows. I see this trend in my reading habits, I’ll be honest about that. I think [Random Acts of Reality](http://randomreality.blogware.com/) is one of the rare exceptions to this rule. I remember when the “A list complaining” was about [Megnut](http://www.megnut.com/), [Evhead](http://www.evhead.com/), [Kottke](http://kottke.org/) and the like, in the good ol’ [Blogger](http://blogger.com) days. None of these blogs really attracted me as a reader, their popularity put aside.


I’m not sure many of you will have had the patience to trudge through this long, rambling post, so I’ll try to summarize things for you:

– being popular helps you stay popular; it’s a normal thing, because we tend to like what other people like; nothing wrong with that, just be aware of it;
– popularity is not authority; popularity is easy to measure, it’s quantitative; authority is qualitative; maybe we think we want popularity, but what we really want is recognition for our authority;
– being a good blogger and being a visible blogger are not the same thing, though they can work together well; different tips apply;
– a link on an A list blog is not going to drive tons of traffic your way and put you in the limelight unless you really deserve it; A list blogs aren’t necessarily fascinating for all readers — remember part of their popularity comes from being popular, so don’t fret if you don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

As a final note, I’m pretty happy where I am:

– in the [Swiss French media](/about/presse “Press appearances.”), I have what amounts to “popularity which begets popularity”, and it’s not always all that great: I often feel I get called for interviews more because my name is all over the place than because the journalist has read stuff I wrote and wants to know more about what I have to say on this or that topic;
– I’m not certain I’d like to have 20’000 readers ready to tear apart every post I made;
– I don’t think I’d like people gravitating around me in the hope I’d “out” them and bring them their well-deserved popularity;
– and I certainly wouldn’t like having resident trolls!

Thanks for reading (or skimming), and feel free to react to what I say here. I’m aware some of it is probably a little clumsy or beside the point. Show me where.

Similar Posts: