>>21455423yeah but that is a result of the paranoia that schizophrenia invokes, not being able to distinguish different facial expressions properly is more of an aspergic symptom.
However you can disagree on the intent of someones expression without accusing eachother of mental illness, most of these expressions are interpretable as both neutral and comtemption,
>>21451883>>21451885a face doesn't have to be extremely exageratted to express something, and thinking it does is genuinelly evincing of autism, or that you are a 6 year old or something.
I think much of the time someones mood is inferred from a combination of their expression and the context, and as such, many 'neutral' but slightly negative facial expressions can be presented as a negative facial expression if you just suspend your disbelief
>>21451552if you were told that this woman was showing comtempt, no one would say "then why does she look neutral", since her expression is by far adequately negative.
However if they were told that she was just in a photoshoot, which is what our knowledge is, it is easy to interpret the expression in a neutral way and not think for a moment that she was showing comtempt really.
However since the former scenario would apply for all these pictures, then they are all on topic and
>>21451361 is retarded
