What Does Reading Facial Expressions Really Mean?

[Judge]

I'm sorry, I'm confused - I thought I was talking about facial expressions, I don't think anything I said had to do with facial recognition?? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you think i'm talking about recognizing people, while I'm talking about reading their facial expressions...

I posted "recognition" when I initially meant "expression". But yes, we agree to disagree if you think there is absolutely reliable uniformity in how people express themselves facially whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

I posted recognition when I initially meant expression. But yes, we agree to disagree if you think there is uniformity in how people express themselves whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Alright, thank you for explaining. I think the uniformity is in how neurotypicals involuntarily react, to be clear - microexpressions, the tensing of specific facial muscle combinations revealing initial emotional response, etc. But I suppose we won't agree regardless, so peace.

 

[Judge]

I think the uniformity is in how neurotypicals involuntarily react, to be clear - microexpressions, the tensing of specific facial muscle combinations revealing initial emotional response, etc. But I suppose we won't agree regardless, so peace.

In theory that sounds perfectly valid.

However wouldn't you leave the door open for the possibility of NTs having some kind of individual physiological/neurological disconnect from their facial expressions versus what they are really feeling, whether involuntary or voluntary? That for whatever reason physiologically while in theory they should react in such a way, they don't necessarily.

My line of thinking parallels issues with the weaknesses of polygraphy. That most people's responses to a polygraph are measurable and subsequently reliable. However some person's responses, for whatever reason are not. Which skews the notion of broad reliability in interpreting results.

 

[KassieMac]

No worries! I'd enjoy such a thread for sure! And I know what you mean about people expressing a saying wrong... for a while I thought I had an explanation for "same difference," I think I rationalized it as being an abbreviation for "the two are the same, despite the difference" - as if the difference between the two is irrelevant. I think it would make more sense as some sort of equation where the actions get skipped over in colloquializing... "similarity (same) cancels out difference" or some such, if there's any sort of marking that could represent "cancels out"...Idk I remember spending way too much time thinking up a way to explain it in middle school because I heard it so often. "could care less" always drove me CRAZY though, because eliminating the "not" completely reverses the meaning and then it just sounds mean... Okay yeah I think we need a thread for this, if you haven't already made one?

There's The Figure of Speech That You Dislike The Most, which has a couple of great videos linked, but I don't know of one for origins ... though I love the way you try to work it out, I thought I was the only one who did that!

 

[LittleFiddle05]

In theory that sounds valid. However wouldn't you leave the door open for the possibility of NTs having some kind of individual disconnect from their facial expressions versus what they are really feeling, whether involuntary or voluntary? That for whatever reason physiologically while in theory they should react in such a way, they don't necessarily.

My line of thinking parallels issues with the weaknesses of polygraphy. That most people's responses to a polygraph are measurable and subsequently reliable. However some person's responses, for whatever reason are not.

Ah, but that's the difference with microexpressions! Microexpressions are specifically the muscle responses that occur before the conscious processing of what has been said. The body reacts before the mind processes (ever seen something disturbing? I don't mean to choose a heavy example but it's the best I can think of - when I found my roommate after she committed suicide, I looked away and actually said "oh my goodness" before I realized why i was looking away or what was shocking. My brain processed that I was looking at something traumatic, my body reacted, and THEN I processed why. Perhaps another example would be if you've ever been startled, and you involuntarily jump a little even before you've processed what startled you), and that initial pre-processing reaction is what I'm referring to. People can absolutely change their reactions to fit what they want to demonstrate, or what they think they should feel; someone who is actually relieved about a relationship ending can convince themselves to cry, to be sad, because it's the reaction that they think is appropriate, and so forth. The conscious interpretation and expectation can skew the physiological reaction. However, I'm not talking about consciously-affected reactions; I'm talking about the initial, instinctive facial expression, the one that lasts a fraction of a second. Neurotypicals and those lower on the autism spectrum have an instinctive understanding of those expressions that they make instinctively, and they therefore naturally draw them out - a smile, if the person believes they should be happy, may last several minutes, or longer, or a person may put on a fake smile to imitate a response they know would be there if they were truly experiencing the emotion they want to portray. But the science I'm talking about isn't the conscious, deliberate facial expression; those facial expressions exist BECAUSE of the instinctive, scientifically-true microexpressions, but to say that the deliberate facial expression is as real as the instinctive microexpression would be like saying that a potted plant in someone's living room is as much a representation of the natural ecosystem as a rain forest. People can affect science, but that does not eliminate the scientific basis.

As for your comparison to a polygraph, a polygraph is unreliable because it only calculates a handful of physiological responses that would all be present for multiple different emotions; a person who is sexually aroused will experience a quickeed heart rate just as someone who is frightened would. A polygraph doesn't calculate every aspect of the physiological response, so it can't differentiate between emotions that present similarly. I suppose I would compare the polygraph to looking only at, say, 3 of the muscles in the face (out of over 40 that have been identified). A polygraph probably considers pulse, perhaps moisture on the hands... maybe 2 or 3 factors of the entire response. To consider only three muscles of the face might give you a HINT about the actual response is (if you know the eyes are squinting shut, you can narrow down your options - happiness, surprise, shock, etc would not present with narrowed eyes, while anger, hatred, disgust, etc would...) but without knowing exactly which muscles are active in exactly which ways, you can only narrow down, not specifically identify. If a polygraph could measure physiological responses that are specific ONLY to emotions associated with lying (fear, anxiety, etc) it would have the potential to be much more accurate; if it could also calculate this response in the first couple milliseconds after the question is posed, accuracy would further improve as the polygraph would catch the reaction BEFORE full brain processing, rather than when the subject has had the opportunity to process the difference between the emotion they instinctively feel and the emotion they want to portray. However, as the polygraph (at least to my knowledge) is still based on reactions less instantaneous (heart beat, moisture on the palms...none of these is significantly representative within the pre-processing milliseconds, to read the response you have to consider post-processing miliseconds as well - both reactions take more than a millisecond to present measurably), it lacks the accuracy that can come from the tensing of facial muscles - which can be caught on camera then broken down into still images, which can then be used to identify which muscles instinctively tensed before the brain processed what facial expression would be most appropriate.

Wow I'm sorry this is so long, like I said this was something of a special interest for a while...

 

[Judge]

Wow I'm sorry this is so long, like I said this was something of a special interest for a while...

I can see that ! Makes for an interesting discussion though. Thanks.

I suppose what I'd be looking for would be a legal precedent of an interpretation of a facial expression that held up in court to establish intent, motive, etc.. That's why I had to clarify facial recognition, which does have certain legal precedents that uphold the technology which polygraphs do not.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

I can see that ! Makes for an interesting discussion though. Thanks.

I suppose what I'd be looking for would be a legal precedent of an interpretation of a facial expression that held up in court to establish intent, motive, etc.. That's why I had to clarify facial recognition, which does have certain legal precedents that uphold the technology which polygraphs do not.

That stipulation (the it's-only-valid-if-it-has-been-used-in-court) has a few problems that come to mind immediately. Firstly, evidence; if you want to use an eyewitness testimony to prove intent behind a crime, you would have to have a clear video of the person about to commit the crime; you can't analyze the facial muscles if you can't see them at the relevant time. Secondly, just because the face displays emotion does not prove WHY that emotion is there; for example, one sign of lying might be a smile-like microexpression after the lie has been accepted; generally this might be interpreted as a happiness at seemingly having the lie believed; however, if the person especially loved feeling important or being in the spotlight, that smile microexpression could be happiness at being trusted to answer questions in an important matter. Knowing emotion does not translate to knowing intent or motive; I can generally tell when someone is angry, but more often than not that doesn't mean I know what I did to cause that anger. The emotion, the biologically-programmed facial expressions, are fact; that doesn't mean that how we interpret the meaning of the emotion will always be true.

That said, there are several uses of this science in official realms. A few brief examples after a quick search: United States vs. Airman First Class Michael L. Knapp II, Michael Knapp was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 3 years confinement, etc based largely on testimony using the reading of facial expressions (a "human lie detector," as they put it). This testimony was, from what I read of it, a hugely watered down version of the science; the testimony was by someone who had some training in interpreting nonverbal cues, but from what I can find lacked the level of certification required for use of the science in research; rather than analyzing microexpressions, the testimony was based on lack of eye contact, blood coming to the face... the defense failed to provide any evidence of any qualification to use this science (for all I know, his "training" may have been a one-day session during training), but the testimony was used in court. The "human lie detector" was dismissed upon appeal, but had his analysis of the science been more exact I suspect that would not be the case. Regardless, that's one situation where this has been admissible in court. I was able to find a statement that many professionals like Paul Ekman do provide testimony in court, but without their names, the quick searches I did didn't reveal specifics. However, I think I've established that this has been admissible in court.

Other official applications include training within the Department of Defense, FBI, NYPD, Serious Organized Crime Agency, CIA, MI-5, Israeli National Police...to list a handful of organizations that value this training, and that's only looking at organizations Paul Ekman has worked with, before considering any others in the field. Several companies are in the process of developing technology that uses this science, some by identifying blood flow to the face and others by identifying microexpressions (though specially trained facial observers remain more accurate than machines). It's also being used (no surprise here) to help persons on the autism spectrum interpret non-verbal communication. It has been found that certain facial expressions aren't specific to humans - there are some expressions shared by chimps. Now, of course our understanding of this science is imperfect, it's still growing; that doesn't mean that there aren't facts at the base of it, however. Was medicine not a valid science when it was in its early stages because we didn't understand its entirety? Is it not a valid science now because human error in diagnostics can result in failure to cure? The reactions within the body are there even when a doctor misinterprets them, and the same is the case with facial observation; even when the interpreter misreads, the facial muscles are still there and active. It seems unreasonable to throw away facts simply because our understanding of them is still developing; that's why to be published in "Science" you only need a 70% accuracy rate - a rate low enough to be useless in, say, the courts, but high enough to demonstrate that there's more than chance behind the equation.

 

[KassieMac]

This makes so much sense!!

It seems to me that the facial expressions that NTs recognize & interpret in each other may be somewhat learned, while microexpressions are involuntary … this explains something I've noticed about myself.

I can tell when people are trying to put forth an emotion, but I often can't tell exactly what it is … because I'm overwhelmed by the contrast with their actual emotions. I don't claim to be as skilled as Dr Ekman or his team, but I can tell when there's a conflict which tells me that I can't trust their words or stated intention.

Being cynical & bitter (as I've become), when people say that Aspies can't read faces I protest … I can sense the actual feelings that they won't admit to (or may not even be aware of) … but to keep their true intentions secret they must place the fault on us.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

This makes so much sense!!

It seems to me that the facial expressions that NTs recognize & interpret in each other may be somewhat learned, while microexpressions are involuntary … this explains something I've noticed about myself.

I can tell when people are trying to put forth an emotion, but I often can't tell exactly what it is … because I'm overwhelmed by the contrast with their actual emotions. I don't claim to be as skilled as Dr Ekman or his team, but I can tell when there's a conflict which tells me that I can't trust their words or stated intention.

Being cynical & bitter (as I've become), when people say that Aspies can't read faces I protest … I can sense the actual feelings that they won't admit to (or may not even be aware of) … but to keep their true intentions secret they must place the fault on us.

That's a really interesting thought. I don't know that I'd say they're putting blame on us to absolve themselves of dishonesty so much, but I think maybe what you miss is the reason for the dishonesty? Just because I'm sad doesn't mean I want people to know, and if I'm making a real point of smiling and then they accuse me of lying about my emotions, I'll probably be as frustrated as any neurotypical person would because the accusation of dishonesty would be disrespectful to me; it would be prying into the personal response that I was trying to keep to myself, rather than accepting what I was very clearly trying to portray. Especially as an aspie, it's pretty rare for me to want to go into my actual emotions with someone; if I want to talk about how I'm really feeling, I won't hide my emotions; if I'm acting like I'm feeling something that I'm not, then I'd rather be left in peace with whatever I'm trying not to say.

I do relate as far as being able to read faces goes, though; I think that for me, the things that don't come naturally were the things I learned best, because while others may learn them instinctively, I had to come to rational explanations. Some of it feels instinctive now, but whether it feels natural or not, I can stop and explain why I think I see something. That's actually one reason that I'm a psychology major; I don't just think I see emotions, or think I can relate to someone... I have an explanation for why I'm reading an emotion in the way that I'm reading it, and my understanding of someone's emotions comes from a less biased analysis of the situation. I've had a few people actually jokingly call me "Ms. Lightman" because I sometimes explain things out in a way that reminds them of "Lie to Me," I reach conclusions that others tend to be too biased to see... For example, a male friend of mine used to be somewhat sexually abusive, and while his mother had his therapist asking him if he hated women, if he thought women were inferior, etc, I recognized from patterns in his conversation that he was behaving that way out of low self esteem, he needed to be a bad person so he'd understand why a girl had rejected him because if he was himself and was rejected, there was something wrong with his real personality, while if he acted like an ass then he could say he'd ruined any chance of a relationship because he was going through a phase. Others were biased by their disgust at some of the things he'd say, while I analyzed the whole conversation and found patterns. I know that may not work for all aspies, but for me I think people mistake not reading faces NATURALLY for not being able to learn at all. Face reading is a science; there are muscles, there are patterns... A kid may learn to speak naturally, but that doesn't mean an adult can't study the rules of the language and learn to speak it himself. Sorry, I'm rambling oops :/

 

[KassieMac]

That's a really interesting thought. I don't know that I'd say they're putting blame on us to absolve themselves of dishonesty so much, but I think maybe what you miss is the reason for the dishonesty? Just because I'm sad doesn't mean I want people to know, and if I'm making a real point of smiling and then they accuse me of lying about my emotions, I'll probably be as frustrated as any neurotypical person would because the accusation of dishonesty would be disrespectful to me; it would be prying into the personal response that I was trying to keep to myself, rather than accepting what I was very clearly trying to portray. Especially as an aspie, it's pretty rare for me to want to go into my actual emotions with someone; if I want to talk about how I'm really feeling, I won't hide my emotions; if I'm acting like I'm feeling something that I'm not, then I'd rather be left in peace with whatever I'm trying not to say.

<snip>

Sorry, I'm rambling oops :/

That's not really the situation I'm talking about … everyone has a right to their private feelings, and that's none of my business. I'm talking about communication directed at me, that's when it becomes my business. An extreme example is when people say something malicious or ridicule me (because they perceive me as slow or naive) but when I react they claim to be "just joking." It's an overused excuse, because if I reply to it they'll just say I don't have a sense of humor (another common misperception of Aspies). It was clear to me that their statements were serious, or in other cases ridiculing me with malicious intent … they just didn't expect me to call them out, so they claim that I'm misreading them. Or the claim that I lack a sense of humor because I don't laugh along when I'm the butt of their joke. I can only say that I can tell the difference, which they just brush aside … and since they've listed 'unable to read faces' and 'doesn't understand humor' as Aspie traits now they've got so-called professionals backing them up. These are extreme examples that would be clear to any Aspie in the room, but what I'm trying to say is that I can sense when what they're trying to communicate to me is in conflict with their feelings about me. They can't admit to their true feelings, and now they've got a handy, 'documented' BS excuse built into our diagnosis.

Don't apologize, I'm really enjoying the conversation! Ramble all you like!

 

[Judge]

It seems unreasonable to throw away facts simply because our understanding of them is still developing; that's why to be published in "Science" you only need a 70% accuracy rate - a rate low enough to be useless in, say, the courts, but high enough to demonstrate that there's more than chance behind the equation.

Not throw them away. I never implied that. However keep such processes in a proper perspective.

Alleged "facts" arising from a process with a substantial error rate simply don't factor into a criminal justice system requiring establishing guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

With a process alleged to establish intent and motive, what more optimal and practical application would it have than for use within our legal system? Just not today.

Who knows? Perhaps some day polygraphy will be perfected. Just not today. That's my point.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

Not throw them away. I never implied that. However keep such processes in a proper perspective.

Alleged "facts" arising from a process with a substantial error rate simply don't factor into a criminal justice system requiring establishing guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

With a process alleged to establish intent and motive, what more optimal and practical application would it have than for use within our legal system? Just not today. That's my point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you've completely misunderstood the point I've been trying to make. I'm saying that the correlation between facial muscles and emotions is a science. What I was responding to was you calling the entire process a "pseudoscience," thereby stating that it's false conclusions drawn through what falsely claims to be a scientific method. My point was never that we fully understood it (is there any science that we fully, 100% understand? A lot of researchers would be out of jobs if that were the case...), or that it belongs in courts (personally, I think the courts are one of the last places for such a science even when it's better understood - there's too much room for abuse by people eager to misinterpret the motivations for emotions in order to prove a point. The emotions presented in the facial muscles can be scientifically analyzed, but the reasons the emotions are there is a matter of interpretation; the emotions themselves and their correlation with facial muscles is what I'm calling a science, not the thought process behind the emotions which is NOT in the physiology). My point was simply that facial expressions have been proven not to be a matter of chance; microexpressions are instinctive, not learned, and facial expressions are universal. Are you at all familiar with any of the studies I'm talking about? The error rate was virtually nonexistant, yet you're fixating on whether or not we can read someone's full mind rather than just their emotions accurately enough to prove guilt. I never said we could prove guilt, that it was appropriate in court, that we could read the motivations behind the emotions, or anything at all like what you seem to be responding to. My entire point is that facial expressions have a science behind them, which has nothing to do with how well we understand that science or how we can apply it. A pseudoscience is something like astrology, claiming to be able to define a person's personality based on when they were born, or palmistry, claiming we can predict a person's life by the lines in their hands. I can't see any way in which the correlation between physiological response and emotion, proven to be linked not just across continents and cultures but across even those who have had no exposure to facial expressions outside one isolated community, could possibly be described as a pseudoscience, or effectively baseless fairytales, unless you're thoroughly unfamiliar with the studies.

 

[Judge]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you've completely misunderstood the point I've been trying to make. I'm saying that the correlation between facial muscles and emotions is a science. What I was responding to was you calling the entire process a "pseudoscience," thereby stating that it's false conclusions drawn through what falsely claims to be a scientific method. My point was never that we fully understood it (is there any science that we fully, 100% understand? A lot of researchers would be out of jobs if that were the case...), or that it belongs in courts (personally, I think the courts are one of the last places for such a science even when it's better understood - there's too much room for abuse by people eager to misinterpret the motivations for emotions in order to prove a point. The emotions presented in the facial muscles can be scientifically analyzed, but the reasons the emotions are there is a matter of interpretation; the emotions themselves and their correlation with facial muscles is what I'm calling a science, not the thought process behind the emotions which is NOT in the physiology). My point was simply that facial expressions have been proven not to be a matter of chance; microexpressions are instinctive, not learned, and facial expressions are universal. Are you at all familiar with any of the studies I'm talking about? The error rate was virtually nonexistant, yet you're fixating on whether or not we can read someone's full mind rather than just their emotions accurately enough to prove guilt. I never said we could prove guilt, that it was appropriate in court, that we could read the motivations behind the emotions, or anything at all like what you seem to be responding to. My entire point is that facial expressions have a science behind them, which has nothing to do with how well we understand that science or how we can apply it. A pseudoscience is something like astrology, claiming to be able to define a person's personality based on when they were born, or palmistry, claiming we can predict a person's life by the lines in their hands. I can't see any way in which the correlation between physiological response and emotion, proven to be linked not just across continents and cultures but across even those who have had no exposure to facial expressions outside one isolated community, could possibly be described as a pseudoscience, or effectively baseless fairytales, unless you're thoroughly unfamiliar with the studies.

I'm only considering it a pseudo-science in the same vein as polygraphy. Directly relative to our legal system. That's all. It wasn't intended as a "global" comment about science in general. It's not a dismissal. Please don't take it as such.

I'm not dismissing the science, but rather putting it in it's proper perspective.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

I'm only considering it a pseudo-science in the same vein as polygraphy. Directly relative to our legal system. That's all.

Okay then... I don't know where you got any sort of relevance in evaluating something based on it's context in the legal system (I mean, I wouldn't expect to use astronomy to prove someone's murderous intent, but it's still a science...), but okay. Peace.

 

[Judge]

Okay then... I don't know where you got any sort of relevance in evaluating something based on it's context in the legal system (I mean, I wouldn't expect to use astronomy to prove someone's murderous intent, but it's still a science...), but okay. Peace.

You can't dismiss the science, but you can place it in a proper perspective at a specific point in time. Much like polygraphy in this particular context. If the science evolves and improves, law may well evolve with it. Much like facial recognition. But until then...it has limited practical use.

I just consider criminal law the ultimate benchmark in such an instance. Where the stakes (freedom and life) can be very high.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

You can't dismiss the science, but you can place it in a proper perspective at a specific point in time. That's all I'm doing. If the science evolves and improves, law may well evolve with it. Much like facial recognition. But until then...it has limited practical use.

What I don't understand is why you're arguing that the proper perspective is in the context of the legal system. It seems to me that the proper context for a science that identifies only the outcome, but not the cause - in effect, leaving much room for interpretation - should be within social interactions where lives are not at stake, not trying to prove something that can be a difference of life and death. Within the context of interacting with people, being able to read the emotions in a face can be the difference between an effective interaction and a failed one. It can be the difference between trying to solve an equation and trying to randomly pick the correct answer - the emotion in the face gives you emotional response, which combined with context, can give some hope of solving for the subject's thought process. Unfortunately, that's an a+b+c=d where you're only given a and b but have to solve for d, while c is the person's personality, their history...essentially, their approach to processing information. Being able to accurately find b can be precise, which is why I find it valid; inability to quantify c does not mean that b was found falsely. That's why, to me, in the proper context (the proper context being one that acknowledges that there's a missing variable to finding the full solution, NOT a legal system where you're trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that finding b somehow magically provides you with the answer for d...), it is a science; you just have to be aware of what it is that science is giving you - which is something that I doubt will ever be truly applicable to the legal system, because emotion is not the same as thought process. I guess my point is, I think you're evaluating based on an impossible context, and to claim that the proper perspective for something is one that doesn't acknowledge the nature of what you're trying to evaluate is close-minded.

 

[Judge]

What I don't understand is why you're arguing that the proper perspective is in the context of the legal system.

When I say "perspective", I mean to keep in mind the process you speak of isn't perfect at present regardless of how you apply it.

Sufficiently imperfect that it can't presently meet the requirements of our criminal justice system as admissible evidence. Just as in the case of polygraphy. A very flawed technology based on very sound understanding of human responses.

 

[LittleFiddle05]

When I say "perspective", I mean to keep in mind the process you speak of isn't perfect at present. Sufficiently imperfect that it can't presently meet the requirements of our criminal justice system as admissible evidence. Just as in the case of polygraphy.

I don't recall ever claiming that it was perfect, but okay... But it's inapplicability to the legal system is founded more in factors other than its imperfections... Anyway I guess we're in agreement in its imperfections, but I still hold that it is not a pseudoscience, which would imply that there's no truth to it.

 

[Judge]

Anyway I guess we're in agreement in its imperfections, but I still hold that it is not a pseudoscience, which would imply that there's no truth to it.

Depends on your definition of the term. But that's merely a semantics argument.

If such research is presently applied in a criminal court of law, truth becomes a conditional state- not a percentage of scientific success.

It would fail, whatever you call it. Just like polygraphy. "Not ready for prime time". I think I'm done here...

 

[LittleFiddle05]

Depends on your definition of the term. But that's merely a semantics argument.

If such research is presently applied in a criminal court of law, truth becomes a conditional state- not a percentage of scientific success.

It would fail, whatever you call it.

"Pseudo-science - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." I don't know what definition you're using...

Why do you keep going back to the criminal court of law? I'm so eager to drop this but you keep completely ignoring what I've said. I just said this should NEVER be applied in court. I just said that my point was *never* that it should be applied in court. It would be completely irrelevant in court. What benefit would there be to saying "His initial, pre-processing reaction just now was happiness," or replace happiness with any other emotion? It wouldn't tell you WHY they feel that way, so it wouldn't tell you anything relevant to the case. Someone showing disgust could be disgusted by a memory, disgusted by the victim, or disgusted by the question. Someone happy could be happy at being the center of attention, or happy at getting away with a lie. To use the face to identify emotion would offer no window into guilt, innocence, thought process... anything in any way relevant in a court of law. I've said this several times, so why do you keep responding to me by going back to something that has never been the point I'm making, something I've repeatedly told you is not my belief in the first place?

I'm done responding at this point. You've completely ignored every point I've made in favor of restating a point that's completely irrelevant to anything I've tried to communicate - which would be fine if you were just sharing your opinion, but you quote my last post making me think perhaps you're actually responding to me as opposed to just communicating your separate interpretations. I don't know whether I'm missing your point or you're ignoring mine, maybe this is an instance of me misunderstanding, but as is I feel like you're just talking over me without any regard for anything I've tried to say, and it's demeaning. Once again, peace.