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.
"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
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