Yes, we are. We're full of cognitive biases, but how does that negate the well known fact we can read each others emotions? That's a logical fallacy.

I didn't say " people can't read each others's emotions 'cause cognitive biases." The illusion of transparency specifically deals with the tendency to overestimate how well people generally think they can read other people's emotions:

Another manifestation of the illusion of transparency is a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others' personal mental states.

Empathy isn't some magic psychic power that allows us to read other people's emotions. People can do this at varying degrees of skill and frankly, people get it wrong all the time and attribute emotions to someone who doesn't have them at all. In fact, sociopaths know full well that they can make some people "empathize" with the by acting in certain ways.

The sad fact is that what most people think is "empathy" is really just projection called empathy.

For the record, I'm horrible at it. This is probably no secret to you. :)

Some links you may be interested in:

There is Only Weak Evidence that Mirror Neurons Underlie Empathy

More analytical, less intuitive people are better at empathy

Funny that you didn't find a link to refute the number of muscles I mentioned; there's no real consensus on this number, or even the number of muscles there are in the face. I just went with the numbers I saw most frequently...

I gotta give you kudos for saying that. But yeah I did notice it because it was unnecessary detail. I also noticed this one:

A normal year is the amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun one time; that's approximately 365.25 days.

...

I'll look out for this Richard Bandler dude; he seems interesting.

Heh. There is no other like Bandler. :) It's like the Deadpool of NLP. (Then again, he's a co-founder.)