Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Believing Can Be Seeing
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Scientists at University College London have found the link between what we expect to see, and what our brain tells us we actually saw revealing that the context surrounding what we see is all important — sometimes overriding the evidence gathered by our eyes and even causing us to imagine things which aren't really there. A vague background context is more influential and helps us to fill in more blanks than a bright, well-defined context. This may explain why we are prone to 'see' imaginary shapes in the shadows when the light is poor. "Illusionists have been alive to this phenomenon for years," said Professor Zhaoping. "When you see them throw a ball into the air, followed by a second ball, and then a third ball which 'magically' disappears, you wonder how they did it. In truth, there's often no third ball — it's just our brain being deceived by the context, telling us that we really did see three balls launched into the air, one after the other." The original research paper is available on PLOS, the open-access, peer-reviewed journal."
When you're out driving, you have to be more aware of the possible dangers that you will be facing, like cyclists and motorcyclists. A lot of people don't see them coming at junctions because they're just looking out for cars on the road..
which is totally what she said
Link in parent is malicious. Do not click.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
... is the direct translation of a dutch expression. Also encountered as "First see it, only then believe it."
But apparently we (the dutch) are completely wrong.
-- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
As the summary noted, this is something that people have known about for a very long time. More specifically, this same subject was being discussed on the same website almost eight years ago.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
All of the police officer shootings where the victim had a remote or other non-nefarious object in their hands. It is quite possible that the officer had a mindset to the effect that, hey this guy probably has a gun, and his or her mind see's what they wanted to see.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
It may not be a breaking news story, but it's definitely interesting. I think we all have had things like this happen, and I guess I'm not surprised that it's triggered more by vague context. I've always just figured people were exaggerating when they describe stories about things that happened and someone else calls them out on it - but they probably thought they really saw what they claimed to see.
* No one can make you feel inferior without your consent *
because this is about the only thing which explains my friend and his girlfriends belief in Ghosthunters and such...
I always looked at things this article covers along the lines of we make a decision and justify it later, not the reverse.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The Buddhist Monks have known this for a very very long time.
Well, here's an example. Suppose some guy picks up various scattered bits of facts -- a story on slashdot here, something about Mars kooks there. Now, he has an instinct -- or maybe it's hardwired at an even lower level than that -- to make up patterns around those scattered facts, to fill in the blanks. So he imagines a category of people who 'see things where nothing exists'. Before long, he's convinced enough of this specific phenomenon -- of this entity which is purely a product of his own tendency to create patterns to explain the phenomena he senses -- that he actually starts posting about this group of people on slashdot, as if there actually were one specific kind of person who has this trait!
And then other factors, psychological, move him to assume that he's 'better' than this entity that has popped up in his mind and that he now believes is an actual thing. He even begins to give patronising advice. To him, it's just as if he's *interacting* with this thing, this 'people who see things where nothing exists'. His self-deception is complete!
Far fetched? Maybe. But maybe not...
HTH
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
18 observers is enough? Not that I necessarily disagree with the results they've gathered in this study, but the sample group seems awfully small....
.sigs are for post^Hers.
That's pretty cool, you know. Rashomon was like this but different. Also, is this related to the way that when you read you sometimes skip over spelling mistakes and get the right word? One of my classmates had written conjugation everywhere in his Astronomy notes instead of conjunction, and I didn't even notice when reading over them until I reached one that was only part written, the rest going off the page.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Chico Marx dressed up as Groucho in "Duck Soup" (context information serves as anti-pedantry device).
I write sci-fi for metalheads
While your statement is 100% correct, normally when I'm wearing beer goggles I'm looking for something other than a relationship :)
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
What the article doesn't say is that this phenomenon increases in middle age, both with respect to seeing and hearing. I'm not sure how much is due to actual declines in visual and auditory acuity; I'm inclined to think it's a cognitive effect, like common memory loss.
I've always supposed Lewis Carroll's poem, from _Sylvie and Bruno,_ was referring to this effect. Certainly "He thought he saw... he looked again and found it was..." is happening to me more frequently.
He thought he saw an Elephant,
That practised on a fife:
He looked again, and found it was
A letter from his wife.
"At length I realise," he said,
"The bitterness of Life!"
He thought he saw a Buffalo
Upon the chimney-piece:
He looked again, and found it was
His Sister's Husband's Niece.
"Unless you leave this house," he said,
"I'll send for the Police!"
He thought he saw a Rattlesnake
That questioned him in Greek:
He looked again, and found it was
The Middle of Next Week.
"The one thing I regret," he said,
"Is that it cannot speak!"
He thought he saw a Banker's Clerk
Descending from the bus:
He looked again, and found it was
A Hippopotamus.
"If this should stay to dine," he said,
"There won't be much for us!"
He thought he saw a Kangaroo
That worked a coffee-mill:
He looked again, and found it was
A Vegetable-Pill.
"Were I to swallow this," he said,
"I should be very ill!"
He thought he saw a Coach-and-Four
That stood beside his bed:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bear without a Head.
"Poor thing," he said, "poor silly thing!
It's waiting to be fed!"
He thought he saw an Albatross
That fluttered round the lamp:
He looked again, and found it was
A Penny-Postage Stamp.
"You'd best be getting home," he said:
"The nights are very damp!"
He thought he saw a Garden-Door
That opened with a key:
He looked again, and found it was
A Double Rule of Three:
"And all its mystery," he said,
"Is clear as day to me!"
He thought he saw a Argument
That proved he was the Pope:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bar of Mottled Soap.
"A fact so dread," he faintly said,
"Extinguishes all hope!"
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
There is a branch of philosophy called idealism which is pretty out there, it seems a bit crazy at first, but it deserves more respect than one gets from an initial glance.
All our experiences come from our senses, our eyes/ears/nose/skin/tongue send electrical impulses to our brain, the mind interpreters these groups of sensory experiences and we call it reality.
Idealism says (as best i can describe) that "reality" is the mind's interpretation of these sensory experiences, what causes our senses to send a particular sensory experience to the brain isnt directly knowable, therefore not as relevant as the experience itself.
It is the sensory experience itself that defines reality, i.e. reality is the effect not the cause.
The Wikipedia page doesnt do the topic justice.
I think this phenomenon is often referred to as religion.
the scientists are seeing the results they want to see, and not what the results actually are. That would both invalidate, and validate their claims.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Police officers are trained and take on the risks of the job whereas innocent bystanders have no recourse against misjudged police shootings. Calling in police firepower only where likely to be needed is a sound strategy, even if it does in some cases put the police officers at greater risk. Better that than the population at large being at greater risk. Even with the police forces who are not routinely armed there have been misjudged shootings (e.g. Republic of Ireland, UK). There's no way I would want the police routinely armed. They should of course all be trained in firearms and have access to the best kit available, with armed officers ready to react when needed. The situation we have in Ireland is pathetic with the police having to use old army facilities for training.
The US is however probably a lost cause for gun control anyway with the genie being out of the bottle so to speak. Nevertheless, even acknowledging that reality, the situation there is obviously insane to anyone outside the US. There should at the very least be ongoing research and strategising as to how to normalise the situation there. Having more guns than people is *not* a normal situation, it's just a recipe for disaster.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
"Professor Zhaoping" is Li Zhaoping, and being Chinese, her family name (last name) is Li, NOT Zhaoping (her given, first name). Silly editors, etc. its like going around and calling her Professor Bob or Professor Susie...
"Only if you choose to see it that way."
These are not the droids you are looking for.
Basically, it comes down to this. The bad guys with or without guns, would love to rampage and pillage society, with the only thing holding them back being the police and armed citiziens. This is a huge, huge, problem here, people with no moral compass who could care less if you lived or died. The ONLY deterent to them is force, it's all they understand. If there were no threat of force they WOULD DEFINITELY form roving gangs and take all they could.
That is the problem in the states imo, we don't focus on these lower income demographic (typically) people to the degree that we should. If we brought those lower classes closer to middle class, the proerty rights issue would be of far less concern, as most people would see the error in acting like primitve animals, taking what they want as long as they feel they'll get away with it, at the cost of my life and others.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
I went to a local meeting of the AES (Audio Engineering Society) last week. The talk was about how we perceive stereo sound. The final demonstration was a mystery box with two "circuits" in it. When he switched a circuit in, there would be a 1/2 second delay, and then we would hear it. So we could know what circuit it was it would light either a red or a blue led would light. The then proceeded to play a series of samples 3 times each, one for each circuit and one plain. He used the circuits and plain in different orders as he was working through various samples. When he was done he asked us what we heard each circuit do to the sound. He specifically ask if there was no difference. Now this was a room with about 40-50 audio industry people. Some were students or interested people like my self, but 2/3 were practicing professionals.
When he asked for comments he got a lot of thoughtful comments and different ideas. I personally thought the red circuit had more room sound and sounded warmer and the blue circuit sounded like the microphone was further back in the room and was more ethereal. Nobody said "no difference".
He then reveled that the circuit was nothing more than a LED selector switch and a 1/2 second mute circuit. Otherwise it was a straight wire as far as the audio is concerned. During the demonstration he went to great lengths to not state that the circuits did anything and he mentioned several times "is there no difference?". A room full of audio professionals and not one got it right. He said he had been giving the demonstration for years and so far only two people had said "no difference". He also said that people thought the red circuit was warmer and the blue circuit was more spacious which agreed with my own perceptions. It was one of the best audio demonstrations I had been to in a long time. I left laughing at myself. I was caught just like all the others.
RLH
A former Rock and Roll Sound Guy