Indeed. And I'm a bit surprised at how negative some of these comments are. These are just innocent observations, coloured by her experiences and biases. At no point is she claiming that these are absolute truths. We all make such snap observations all the time, but we mostly don't write them down or turn them into paintings.

It's a sight full of autists, don't be TOO surprised.

Site. Sorry, OCD. :)

Don't worry about it. And don't call me OCD!

The surprising thing isn't that the signals exist or are picked up, but that the SnR is good enough to be able to support the level of confidence expressed in TFA.

I don't think it's surprising at all, we've evolved to pick up social queues and read each other's body language/facial expressions. It's deeply ingrained in our social wiring, we do it so well it's subconscious.

I’m not sure that we know this to be the case. It’s difficult to objectively study.

TV series Continuum has AR glasses interpreting human micro-signals.

Modern video conferencing streams may contain enough information for emotion inference.

In hindsight yeah it's obvious. But at the time I had a mentality of "well you can't know for sure, you can't assume this signal means that, it's not scientific, it's not objective, etc." There's also a part of it that feels kind of judgemental and impolite "intruding" in that way, especially if you make the wrong read.

"I don't like it" "I don't want it to be so" "I don't want this thing which I'm inept at to be real; it's unscientific!"

No not exactly, it was more "I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know someone better than they know themselves, I'm not going to dogmatically explain a person to themselves as if I have all the information and can magically intuit and deduce everything about them." This is still generally true, not just for myself, but for every rare true student of human nature there are a dozen fools trying to make a read and failing miserably.