Can makeup contribute to reduced empathy?

[Latte]

When conscious of it, I have usually had some degree of an eerie feeling the higher physical proximity I have had to a face with heavy makeup. When not conscious of it, I have tended to in retrospect observe that my experience of the person as an emotional being was diminished compared to how I would imagine it to be if they did not have such makeup.

I have after a longer time of self-observation and observation of others started to liken my reaction to the phenomena to a sort of entry from the human side into the borderlands of the uncanny valley.

A reduction of the visibility of facial colour and muscular details are reduction of self-expression things one could speculate contributes to this, and makeup styles that give the impression of certain mind state aspects or emotions are addition of self-expression that could contribute to this.


I just got linked this http://imgur.com/a/0sJ07#0 and I would argue it's a great sample set because there is a variety in the heaviness of makeup, but the spectrum and every example is heavy enough for one to solidly check for noticed differences even among the less perceptive of us.

I haven't talked much with people about this, so I am largely unaware how other people experience this or if they experience it at all, so I seek feedback from you (yes, You).

How is this stuff for you? What do you notice? How does what you notice/don't notice make you feel in your normal life? How are your observations?

If I'm not too far from the mark on an idea of how people for the most part are affected, what are the cultural implications of this effect?

 

[redbaron]

Someone wearing a lot of make-up makes it hard for me to take them seriously. So I think in a way you're right. People caked with make-up (speaking daily routine, not for occasions or outings) do make me feel a little apprehensive about them. I think noticing it when you're not supposed to, like all that make-up is designed to hide something - that's what makes it feel weird to me.

But for example lipstick - is pretty obvious, to me it's sort of like a personality quirk or a statement, not so much of an insecurity thing. I'm relatively indifferent to people wearing lipstick. Actually thinking of people wearing lipstick seems to make me think they're a more fun/energetic person. I guess this is an example of what you meant of make-up as an addition to self-expression.

I might have more to add later, but for now off the top of my head it seems:

- caked make-up, detracts from self-expression, makes me personally wonder about their perceived insecurities and character
- lipstick, adds to self-expression, comes across as fun, energetic in some ways

I do wonder how much of this is based on personal experience though. I have a good friend who wears lipstick commonly, she's very bubbly and artistic. This could be influencing my perception, I can't be sure.

As for cultural implications, I'd have to consider more examples before I could really give an idea.

 

[loveofreason]

Wow. Those images really do provide contrasting stimuli, and the effect is profound.

The unmade faces are almost all attractive and approachable. After make-up, it's as though a glass wall has gone up, creating impossible to traverse distance between viewer and object. Makes me think about how I have judged and avoided heavy make-up wearers in real life... they're unnerving.

Heavy make-up is for theatre (in the broad sense), but interpersonally it is repellent. Probably because the wearer can't be accurately appraised for social intention? If we can't discern a person's real state, we have no basis to trust them. It would be a natural reaction to feel wary, distrustful.

I can see how the situation provokes the 'uncanny'. A made-up person is humanity, Jim, but not as we know it.

The context means everything to whether make up is appropriate or not. In theatre the wearer becomes a channel for attributes we want to dramatise. The person becomes removed from their own specific humanity and projects a stylised hyper-representation of some extreme of human expression, for the involvement of others - vicariously - in that state....

It must go a long way back into prehistory that humans wore all kind of temporary adornment for purposes of communication with various psychological and emotional states, to invoke 'spirits' (ie. states), of anger, lust, sorrow etc. But when the drama ends, we need the empathy, communication and inter-personal identification to resume as normal.

(Except that various cultures have also used make-up as a means of social stratification? Of delineating who is approachable to whom? So 'normal' may contain elements of tribalisation; belonging/excluding, even now. Emo or goth as a cultural grouping, with identifying signature make-up, comes to mind.)

 

[Cavallier]

I see what you mean Latte, and I had a similar reaction to LoR. After looking at the photos for a while I noticed a big change in how genuine I felt the people looked as a whole with and without makeup.

I think their expressions come across as less genuine when heavily covered. I don't know if it is the makeup that's making them seem less genuine or the fact that they know they look different and are attempting to make "sexy" expressions which are inherently less genuine than a simple "I feel nervous" smile.

I wonder where the line is drawn. Lots of makeup is weird. Too little makeup shows skin inconsistancies and uneveness that can lead to subconcious judements concerning health and virility by other people. So, what amount of makeup too much?

 

[crippli]

I don't think I'm much influenced. Similar with clothes. As is like super super heavy makeup. I will judge them more on behavioral patterns. If they move in flock or alone. Have an open or closed body language. If one reveals more skin, tight clothing, then it makes sense with more makeup to not reveal too much. And people I barely know I have little need to observe in full nakedness. And that of body language is much more informative imo the facial expressions generally. Not to mention the voice. It is so much more affecting then the face can over hope to be.

The people in the link are porn stars? Makes sense to wear war paint. Unsure how much of the real you, you want the customers to know. They get to know plenty anyway. I think in such a profession guarding your own emotional vulnerability is important, and perhaps, at least imaginary, one may do this with make up. Better looks, even superficially, will certainly make for larger profits. As is the base criteria. As is often important to most people who take up paid work.

It all have an explanation. I've seen no reason to indulge in the uncanny vally. Most likely I'll just view it as bad or god art depending on skill. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. There is little difference to me a painting on paper or a human skin. But one need a photo capture device to freeze the moment in time. Or else the effort seems a little wasted imo. Also, flash lightening is very non flattering, and not even real. I haven't heard of many people who prefer flood construction light apparatus to throughly light up the bed when doing romance.

 

[Cognisant]

Being into robotics I consider myself fairly desensitised to the uncanny valley effect, although I do get the impression that their made up faces present a different persona, the lower eyelids have dropped, the smiles are less tense, they seem both relaxed and detached, like the makeup is a mask that they're hiding behind which I suppose isn't so far from the truth, although I imagine to say as much to them would cause offence.

Many people who have plastic surgery or wear heavy make up are quick to defend it as their true face, not the face they were born with, not their natural face, rather the face they've chosen for themselves, more indicative of who they are than what they are, compare/contrast to the character V and his Guy Fawkes mask, except in his case the face underneath is likely heavily disfigured, decide for yourself whether that's relevant.

We ourselves use avatars and screen names and I'm sure some of us identify more with them than our given names & real faces.

 

[Chad]

Make-up is quite literally a mask. People have an tendency to not trust people with mask. The first inclination is that they are hiding something. Which is probably true of woman who were lots of makeup. It generally a sign that they are insecure about there natural appearance. Generally speaking this is about as real as a 120 year old teenager thinking she is fat.

@Cognisant
He makes a good point.
"We ourselves use avatars and screen names and I'm sure some of us identify more with them than our given names & real faces."

However I do actually use my real name because I get extremely irritated when people call me by any other name. I also would have no problem using my actual photo for my avatar but I have been informed on another forum site that this is not execrable forum behavior. In that other forum everyone ended up thinking I was fake because I was being too transparent. Therefore I learn my lesson partly. I only use my first name now and my avatar of my smart phone cover I designed. It still shows me it just shows my interests instead of my face.

 

[Fukyo]

There is a noticeable difference in the facial expressions of the women before and after makeup. They smile in a more confident and cocky way with makeup, while their facial expressions look more gentle, homely and non-intimidating without make up.

I was going to say I don't experience reduced empathy for heavily made up women, but then I remember that I like many others harbor some prejudices against such women, but I guess that is a lack of empathy.

 

[MissQuote]

This is slightly off topic,

I noticed not one of them had their hands or arms showing in the non makeup picture, whereas nearly all of them are touching their hair or collar bone or breast or shoulder in the makeup pictures. Of the ones where the actual hand does not show them touching themselves the forearm at least is showed crossing over or behind.

So, even the women who are not obviously posing still involve their arms in the makeup picture, they involve more of their whole body movement.

Okay. I don't have any conclusion about why that may be yet, but it was just an observation I had just now I wanted to point out.

Done derailing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

A person's physical flaws play toward compassion and humility in humans, and makeup hides those imperfections. Identifying another person as someone who's similar to you(and not unrealistic like a cartoon) facilitates understanding, and makeup creates a distance between what's natural and unrealistic/idealistic. Also, makeup can sexualize a person's image; this can create a social distance of male-female or a general divide between the Attractive and the Attracted.

All these, especially combined, would make sense if one feels less empathy toward people with heavy make-up.


I'm against the standard of beauty it contributes to and think society would be better off without it, but otherwise I'm fine with people using makeup for self-expression, or self-encouragement, that's their business. I don't think I could be okay with a partner who used too much to where it was noticeable(beyond lipstick), but it's just speculation.

 

[Polaris]

I think make-up does little to shape what kind of impression I get of someone. Of course, caked up faces are a little bit perplexing and makes one think there may be some dramatic effect desired...or something to be hidden...who knows.

But humans have decorated themselves historically throughout many cultures, be it make-up or other forms of expression. To enhance masculinity, or project strength and courage; provoke fear in the enemy, whatever. I think the modern associations with make-up have become somewhat distorted and darkened because of gender-issues/gaps.

I had a partner once who used to sometimes wear eyeliner. We had a lot of fun standing in front of the mirror, making subtle suggestions as to how we should apply our make-up before going out. I found it incredibly attractive that he was able to cross this barrier without worrying how society perceived him. And no, he wasn't closet-gay, just comfortable with being different, or daring to act on his personal desires. To me that is more attractive than a bunch of useless muscles.

 

[BigApplePi]

I see my wife both with and without makup. Apparently makup covers flaws so one "looks better" depending on how one wants to define that. In looking at that makup link, my subjective reaction is I find those without makeup more endearing and those with makeup wishing to put on the best impression.

Until this thread came up I ordinarily pay no attention to whether a woman has makup or not. I let it wash over me unconsciously. I do recall reading though that during sex (shows how observant I am), there are many external changes to the skin. Blood flow, eyes widening or something. This means that makeup, whether consciously or not sets up sexual attraction. This may not be intended, but when everyone does it, and the non-doer is noticed, there must be a fashion aspect. I noticed a few years ago when watching a news program, the reporters half being women, generally wore no makeup. Then that changed. The same women now wore makeup. Someone must have said something to them. I wonder how they put it?

 

[Etheri]

We ourselves use avatars and screen names and I'm sure some of us identify more with them than our given names & real faces.

Cog got it right, we all wear masks and pretend, even in real life. Or atleast I do, pretty much all the time. Sometimes I'm suprised at how little people i interact with atleast every two days know about me... Yet then again i'm somehow proud.

I try not to judge people who have a LOT of makeup on (and most of these pictures certainly go into that category), but I think it only makes it more obvious that you're playing a facade.

There is a noticeable difference in the facial expressions of the women before and after makeup. They smile in a more confident and cocky way with makeup, while their facial expressions look more gentle, homely and non-intimidating without make up.

I was going to say I don't experience reduced empathy for heavily made up women, but then I remember that I like many others harbor some prejudices against such women, but I guess that is a lack of empathy.

At first I disagreed with you, but 9: Elle Alexandra, the top two pictures totally fit your description... Yet my brain clearly says the smile without makeup is far more genuine. Also, it appears as if she is still wearing makeup, or atleast eye-liner. Also, first picture looks brighter and all that... I smell intentional bias towards natural picture through how it was given...
Also, this was one of the only 'stars' that I didn't find far uglier without make-up... I'm sad to admit.

 

[BigApplePi]

A male view. If you are male, what do you think? I picked this one.
http://imgur.com/a/0sJ07#9

If these four were different people, I'd pick three* to have sex with on first impression. But the NW one is the one I'd want to know, be friends or have a romantic relationship with.

Let's try titles to these four, counterclockwise:
NE: I just made the magazine cover.
SE: Hey big fella. Wanna have some fun?
SW: If you like me, wanna take care of me?
NW: Hi. This is the real me. Who are you?

*Maybe not SE.

 

[Chad]

I see my wife both with and without makup. Apparently makup covers flaws so one "looks better" depending on how one wants to define that. In looking at that makup link, my subjective reaction is I find those without makeup more endearing and those with makeup wishing to put on the best impression.

Until this thread came up I ordinarily pay no attention to whether a woman has makup or not. I let it wash over me unconsciously. I do recall reading though that during sex (shows how observant I am), there are many external changes to the skin. Blood flow, eyes widening or something. This means that makeup, whether consciously or not sets up sexual attraction. This may not be intended, but when everyone does it, and the non-doer is noticed, there must be a fashion aspect. I noticed a few years ago when watching a news program, the reporters half being women, generally wore no makeup. Then that changed. The same women now wore makeup. Someone must have said something to them. I wonder how they put it?

That strange, generally everyone on air wares makeup both men and women. This is not a glamor or fashion issue. They do it because stage lighting need for the cameras pick up the image clearly often wash out facial features. This don't look pleasant to watch. Its the same reason that stage actors/actresses were makeup.

Being in a few plays in High School and having to were makeup I started to feel sorry for any woman that believed that she needed to were makeup on a regular biases. My wife wares makeup sometimes but not on a daily bases. I find that I don't like to kiss her as much when she has lipstick or even chopstick on. I think she looks beautiful all natural. Its a nice treat when she dolls herself up for a special date too but that more for her own benefit than mine.

 

[Duxwing]

I see what you mean Latte, and I had a similar reaction to LoR. After looking at the photos for a while I noticed a big change in how genuine I felt the people looked as a whole with and without makeup.

I think their expressions come across as less genuine when heavily covered. I don't know if it is the makeup that's making them seem less genuine or the fact that they know they look different and are attempting to make "sexy" expressions which are inherently less genuine than a simple "I feel nervous" smile.

I wonder where the line is drawn. Lots of makeup is weird. Too little makeup shows skin inconsistancies and uneveness that can lead to subconcious judements concerning health and virility by other people. So, what amount of makeup too much?

Acne and scar creams are perfect examples of how one can avoid looking ugly without wearing makeup. Consider the former: it allows those suffering from unsightly blemishes to truly remove them, rather than covering them up beneath a dusty facade. Not only does the skin appear healthier after treatment, it is healthier: Acne is an infection of the pores that can leave permanent, unsightly gouges and scars on the face of the sufferer. Yet even these can be treated, albeit presumably to a lesser extent, by scar cream. Scar tissue, as we all know, is the body's rapid-acting band-aid. Provided that the bleeding is stopped, it can heal unspeakable gashes in a matter of hours, but it leaves an unappealing twisted, knotted mass of skin remains at the site of the laceration or puncture. Assuming that acne and scar creams are not the only skin treatments of their kind, then, we can deduce that removing defects from one's visage does not necessarily imply appearing uncanny for the duration of the effect. But my argument contains an aforementioned assumption, so I'll pose a question: do treatments besides acne and scar cream exist?

-Duxwing

 

[Double_V]

Interesting topic. To answer the OP, I never thought of that before but I think the answer is yes to reducing empathy. But my next thought is that seems more than fair as, for example, great eye makeup can open alot of doors.

Moving on, it's interesting how timing topics/posts on internet forums can be to ones personal thoughts. I recently was studying pictures of a person who I am often told I look like. I studied her with and without makeup, and before and after various treatments or surgeries. I concluded she puts alot of effort into uglying up. Excessive tanning, makeup, hair dye, etc. Without it she is much more attractive (to me anyway).

I recently took numerous pictures of myself to see what I look like because I didn't really know what I look like. What an interesting little science project that turned out to be.

Also as far as 'the mask' concept goes, yes, I have knowingly used makeup as a mask before. I did so on the few times I went out during/after a major illness in our family when I was just beyond... beyond. It was a way to 'fake it', not so much about looks but rather a way to conceal how I really felt emotionally and physically. For an NT female that kind of strain along with appearing unemotional, not good. I delibrately choose warm colors to create a sense of (my appearing to be) warm. Almost like trying to find a way back to having an emtotion. Does what I am saying make any sense to anybody (I am an ENTP)?

It's my standing joke - if I feel like crap but put a little makeup on I have often found that I look at myself and decide 'Oh, I look like I feel okay so I must feel okay' and then just decide not to be sick.

As to the pic's, I thought most of the brunettes were more attractive especially w/o makeup (also noticed most made the mistake of over dyed or pigmented hair at least) and I thought most of the blondes needed makeup. Maybe it's just me. *shrug*

 

[Cognisant]

If these four were different people, I'd pick three* to have sex with on first impression. But the NW one is the one I'd want to know, be friends or have a romantic relationship with.

You couldn't drown a baby

Still lets get some opinions on this: Which is a more valid form of self representation, being seen as you naturally are or being seen as you wish to be seen?

Arguably (again from a robotics PoV) the face is itself a mask over our facial bone structure, there are a lot of small muscles in the face enabling us to (with practice) greatly change the way we look, and I'm sure all of us use our faces deceptively every single day, actively changing our expressions to depict ourselves as we wish to be seen.

How is that different to wearing make up?

Edit: Is make up a misrepresentation of the psychological self or the physical self, because if anything like our avatars, the former, having been consciously decided upon by the person in question, would probably (if not always) be a more accurate representation of the psychological self, so what make up actually hides is the physical self, in which case Latte your lack of empathy towards the depicted women may be little different to the average guy's lack of empathy for Justin Bieber.

 

[Double_V]

Edit: Is make up a misrepresentation of the psychological self ...

Very often it's a representation of the wearer's psyche, window into their emotional health (or lack thereof). A neon sign of 'something is a bit off'.

 

[BigApplePi]

You couldn't drown a baby

Please. Please. You talkin' t'me?

Give me ten babies, put makeup on five, supply a sink, and we'll put it to the test. I have empathy. I do have empathy.

 

[Latte]

You couldn't drown a baby

Still lets get some opinions on this: Which is a more valid form of self representation, being seen as you naturally are or being seen as you wish to be seen?

Arguably (again from a robotics PoV) the face is itself a mask over our facial bone structure, there are a lot of small muscles in the face enabling us to (with practice) greatly change the way we look, and I'm sure all of us use our faces deceptively every single day, actively changing our expressions to depict ourselves as we wish to be seen.

How is that different to wearing make up?

Edit: Is make up a misrepresentation of the psychological self or the physical self, because if anything like our avatars, the former, having been consciously decided upon by the person in question, would probably (if not always) be a more accurate representation of the psychological self, so what make up actually hides is the physical self, in which case Latte your lack of empathy towards the depicted women may be little different to the average guy's lack of empathy for Justin Bieber.

Excuse my low degree of elaboration in the original post.

My meaning of empathy in the context of visual assessment and makeup was the cognitive act of assessing/imagining the current mind state of another. While makeup choices (like avatar choices) can be useful for getting ideas of things like "inner identity" or core selves, even in that respect its information expressing potential is abysmal compared to the complex interface that is our body. This assuming the beholder has a well developed ability to interpret complex facial information.

The lowering of empathy I observed in myself, I meta cognitively traced back to a lower degree of information available for use in my discernment of the wearer's mind state.


Foundation and elsethings with static coloring effects reduce one's ability to see blood flow fluctuations in the face. The heavier the makeup, the more likely is also that lines and detail in the skin and the face are not available for aiding one to interpret facial muscle movements.
When makeup results in a static effect implying a certain mind state (like blush, eye liner, mascara) it still is non-fluctuating and does not result in new information for empathy processes beyond the initial gaze.


~Tangent
Whether the empathy processes are sufficiently accuracy-effective to discern the true mind state and not false mind state of an individual from a specific set of information would be irrelevant when it comes to the degree to which empathy processing is occurring in a mind.

~¤
I don't think it's a significant stretch to without empirical evidence claim that for an individual with a well developed and habitually active ability to derive mind states from facial expressions, makeup would yield a significant net loss of the potential for depth and fleshedoutedness in one's understanding of someone's state of mind and by extension one's intuitive idea of their repertoire of mindstates.

 

[Polaris]

...And thank you for bringing this back out of creepy-territory Latte.

I see your point now, thank you for explaining. I haven't considered that before.

I think Crippli touched on this point that there are many ways of reading and discerning a person's mental state including voice, body language, etc. We know blind people can "read" people just as well from picking up on the nuances of voice. Which makes me wonder how much people generally rely on visual impressions, and how much these influence further judgement/assessment of the person in question. That is, if we could learn to "see" like blind people, perhaps we would have a different reading of the person in question. Would we be more empathetic? Would we be less "fooled"?

By that, I'm not implying that make-up is a bad thing...to the contrary, as people have said before, it's just different forms of expression. A person wearing heavy make-up may have various reasons for it....it's not always related to sexual expression as some people blatantly assume. It could simply be a matter of 'war-paint' like Crippli said, or an expression of superiority as you see with some women in executive roles. In their case it could be a conscious effort to project a more aggressive/sharp look....to harden the face through make-up could (and to potentially obscure the opportunity for clear reading as Latte pointed out) give them an advantage in a highly competitive corporate environment....just like wearing a suit would.

 

[~~~]

^From memory the visual part of communication is a very significant part of the information conveyed ordinarily.

 

[Cognisant]

...And thank you for bringing this back out of creepy-territory Latte.

Was that referring to BAP's infancidal tendencies, or something more?

Btw way BAP the joke was that you're too shallow to drown a baby, they being notoriously good at drowning themselves in even the shallowest pools of water.

Hold on did you guys/gals think I was talking about BAP's baby killing emotional fortitude?
That has nothing to do with the quote.
Wow, projection much?

 

[crippli]

...And thank you for bringing this back out of creepy-territory Latte.

I see your point now, thank you for explaining. I haven't considered that before.

I think Crippli touched on this point that there are many ways of reading and discerning a person's mental state including voice, body language, etc. We know blind people can "read" people just as well from picking up on the nuances of voice. Which makes me wonder how much people generally rely on visual impressions, and how much these influence further judgement/assessment of the person in question. That is, if we could learn to "see" like blind people, perhaps we would have a different reading of the person in question. Would we be more empathetic? Would we be less "fooled"?

By that, I'm not implying that make-up is a bad thing...to the contrary, as people have said before, it's just different forms of expression. A person wearing heavy make-up may have various reasons for it....it's not always related to sexual expression as some people blatantly assume. It could simply be a matter of 'war-paint' like Crippli said, or an expression of superiority as you see with some women in executive roles. In their case it could be a conscious effort to project a more aggressive/sharp look....to harden the face through make-up could (and to potentially obscure the opportunity for clear reading as Latte pointed out) give them an advantage in a highly competitive corporate environment....just like wearing a suit would.

I much agree. Very well put

 

[walfin]

NE: I just made the magazine cover.
SE: Hey big fella. Wanna have some fun?
SW: If you like me, wanna take care of me?
NW: Hi. This is the real me. Who are you?

NW is the cutest!!! The hottest to me.

Make-up is pointless, I wonder why girls waste their money on it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

what it reveals is more obvious than what it masks

it reveals ignorance and crippled reason

(cassandra nix is super hot without it omg)

 

[Brontosaurie]

Acne and scar creams are perfect examples of how one can avoid looking ugly without wearing makeup. Consider the former: it allows those suffering from unsightly blemishes to truly remove them, rather than covering them up beneath a dusty facade. Not only does the skin appear healthier after treatment, it is healthier: Acne is an infection of the pores that can leave permanent, unsightly gouges and scars on the face of the sufferer. Yet even these can be treated, albeit presumably to a lesser extent, by scar cream. Scar tissue, as we all know, is the body's rapid-acting band-aid. Provided that the bleeding is stopped, it can heal unspeakable gashes in a matter of hours, but it leaves an unappealing twisted, knotted mass of skin remains at the site of the laceration or puncture. Assuming that acne and scar creams are not the only skin treatments of their kind, then, we can deduce that removing defects from one's visage does not necessarily imply appearing uncanny for the duration of the effect. But my argument contains an aforementioned assumption, so I'll pose a question: do treatments besides acne and scar cream exist?

-Duxwing

you don't have a fucking clue about acne

there's no cream to cure the disease. the only CURE is huge cumulative doses of a substance that heavily taxes your liver.

don't pretend to know what you don't

kthxbye

 

[Brontosaurie]

it allows those suffering from unsightly blemishes to truly remove them