top of page

Why do people from other races all look alike?
The fusiform face area 

Check out this short 15s clip of Bond, James Bond, above.
The evil villain, Christoph Waltz, threatens to destroy a small part of Bond's brain, the fusiform gyrus. Waltz claims that it would render Bond unable to recognise anyone anymore.

Is Waltz right? Well, broadly, yes. He's right in that the fusiform gyrus is about facial recognition. And destorying this tiny part of the brain does remove Bond's ability to recognise faces.
(I do hasten to add that of course, we recognise people by more than their faces - but given that Waltz is quite a terrific actor, we will let him off for this on
Why do people from another all look like they have the same face?
Neurons, neural network. You recognise what you are more familiar with
Empathy -eagleman

But work by Isabel Gauthier of Vanderbilt University demonstrates something more complicated. Show pictures of different cars, and the fusiform activates—in automobile aficionados. 112 Show pictures of birds, and ditto among bird-watchers. The fusiform isn’t about faces; it’s about recognizing examples of things from categories that are emotionally salient to each individual.

Damaging the fusiform, for example, selectively produces “face blindness” (aka prosopagnosia), an inability to recognize faces. Work by John Gabrieli at MIT demonstrates less fusiform activation for other-race faces, with the effect strongest in the most implicitly racist subjects. This isn’t about novelty—show a face with purple skin and the fusiform responds as if it’s same-race. The fusiform isn’t fooled—“That’s not an Other; it’s just a ‘normal’ Photoshopped face.” 

In accord with that, white Americans remember white better than black faces; moreover, mixedrace faces are remembered better if described as being of a white rather than a black person. Remarkably, if mixed-race subjects are told they’ve been assigned to one of the two races for the study, they show less fusiform response to faces of the arbitrarily designated “other” race. 12 Our attunement to race is shown in another way, too. 13 Show a video of someone’s hand being poked with a needle, and subjects have an “isomorphic sensorimotor” response—hands tense in empathy. Among both whites and blacks, the response is blunted for other-race hands; the more the implicit racism, the more blunting. Similarly, among subjects of both races, there’s more activation of the (emotional) medial PFC when considering misfortune befalling a member of their own race than of another race. This has major implications. In work by Joshua Correll at the University of Colorado, subjects were rapidly shown pictures of people holding either a gun or a cell phone and were told to shoot (only) gun toters. This is painfully reminiscent of the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo. Diallo, a West African immigrant in New York, matched a description of a rapist. Four white officers questioned him, and when the unarmed Diallo started to pull out his wallet, they decided it was a gun and fired forty-one shots. The underlying neurobiology concerns “event-related potentials” (ERPs), which are stimulus-induced changes in electrical activity of the brain (as assessed by EEG— electroencephalography). Threatening faces produce a distinctive change (called the P200 component) in the ERP waveform in under two hundred milliseconds. Among white subjects, viewing someone black evokes a stronger P200 waveform than viewing someone white, regardless of whether the person is armed. Then, a few milliseconds later, a second, inhibitory waveform (the N200 component) appears, originating from the frontal cortex—“Let’s think a sec about what we’re seeing before we shoot.” Viewing a black individual evokes less of an N200 waveform than does seeing someone white. The greater the P200/N200 ratio (i.e., the greater the ratio of I’m-feeling-threatened to Hold-on-a-sec), the greater the likelihood of shooting an unarmed black individual. In another study subjects had to identify fragmented pictures of objects. Priming white subjects with subliminal views of black (but not white) faces made them better at detecting pictures of weapons (but not cameras or books). 14 Finally, for the same criminal conviction, the more stereotypically African a black individual’s facial features, the longer the sentence. 15 In contrast, juries view black (but not white) male defendants more favorably if they’re wearing big, clunky glasses; some defense attorneys even exploit this “nerd defense” by accessorizing their clients with fake glasses, and prosecuting attorneys ask whether those dorky glasses are real. In other words, when blind, impartial justice is supposedly being administered, jurors are unconsciously biased by racial stereotypes of someone’s face.

Second depressing finding: subliminal signaling of race also affects the fusiform face area, the cortical region that specializes in facial recognition. 11 Damaging the fusiform, for example, selectively produces “face blindness” (aka prosopagnosia), an inability to recognize faces. Work by John Gabrieli at MIT demonstrates less fusiform activation for other-race faces, with the effect strongest in the most implicitly racist subjects. This isn’t about novelty—show a face with purple skin and the fusiform responds as if it’s same-race. The fusiform isn’t fooled—“That’s not an Other; it’s just a ‘normal’ Photoshopped face.” In accord with that, white Americans remember white better than black faces; moreover, mixed race faces are remembered better if described as being of a white rather than a black person. Remarkably, if mixed-race subjects are told they’ve been assigned to one of the two races for the study, they show less fusiform response to faces of the arbitrarily designated “other” race.

Though we derive subliminal information from bodily cues, such as posture, we get the most information from faces. 19 Why else evolve the fusiform? The shape of women’s faces changes subtly during their ovulatory cycle, and men prefer female faces at the time of ovulation. Subjects guess political affiliation or religion at above-chance levels just by looking at faces. And for the same transgression, people who look embarrassed—blushing, eyes averted, face angled downward and to the side—are more readily forgiven.

bottom of page