Interesting study on perception...
- Thread starter Ducky
- Start date
-
- Tags
- perception study
Susan Blackmore (and others) spoke of some similar stuff at the Mind, Brain, and Consciousness seminar in LA in May. I had not seen this study, though--thanks for pointing it out. In its way, it is cooler than some of the stuff that was presented in LA. But if you go to the skeptic.com forum, and search for "gorilla", you may find an even cooler example.
Attentional blindness is, to me, a wonderful example of just how bad introspection is as a method of studying consciousness. We learn so much more about our thinking by these elegant experiments than we ever learned by asking ourselves to pay attention to our thoughts.
Attentional blindness is, to me, a wonderful example of just how bad introspection is as a method of studying consciousness. We learn so much more about our thinking by these elegant experiments than we ever learned by asking ourselves to pay attention to our thoughts.
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
I haven't read the actual study, so I don't know for sure, but I have to imagine that in order for the subjects not to notice the switch, the faces would have to be pretty similar, possibly even similar enough to make the degree of preference very small to non-existent. I wonder how many of the choices were made simply because an answer of "no discernable difference" wasn't available. In those cases I wouldn't be at all surprised that they didn't notice the switch.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
I was thinking that same thing. Suppose I was a subject subjected to a large number of choices and some were (to my taste) "Humm, silly test, OK, that one."
No compelling reason I'd remember that one choice later.
Maybe more details would help me figure out what was surprizing about the results.
By the way, your point is grounded in empirical evidence about stimulus generalization and memory and has relevance to false eyewitness identifications.
No compelling reason I'd remember that one choice later.
Maybe more details would help me figure out what was surprizing about the results.
By the way, your point is grounded in empirical evidence about stimulus generalization and memory and has relevance to false eyewitness identifications.
Last edited:
The "attentional blindness" examples presented at the LA conference included some fairly substantial changes which went unnoticed by a large percentage of subjects. It is tempting to think of this as a "no discernable difference" situation, but I think you might be surprised at how big a change can be made without subjects being aware of any change at all. (in my own class, 90% of students or more were completely unaware of a very distinctive figure walking through a scene that they were closely observing...albeit observing under specific instructions.)
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
Cool, I need a tape of that. I saw a gorilla on the court and it wasn't even the Lakers.
Where can I steal that on VHS to show in class?
Where can I steal that on VHS to show in class?
On skeptic forum (I know you are there). In the "questions from the conference" area (or whatever renata called it). Thread called "gorilla experiment" or "did you see the gorilla" or some such title with the word "gorilla" in it. Follow Electric Monk's link. Then buy the DVD.
eta: or you could, thoroughly unethically, just use the video from the link, which works wonderfully.
eta: or you could, thoroughly unethically, just use the video from the link, which works wonderfully.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
That would entail having a link in my classroom.
Or unethically burning it.
Or unethically burning it.
Last edited:
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
We have some linked "smart classrooms".
Mine are dumbass classrooms. I have to get the AV squad to drag an old panesonic VCR in to show "Secrets of the Superpsychics" and "Bambi Meets Godzilla" .
So I have to have any vidies portables.
Mine are dumbass classrooms. I have to get the AV squad to drag an old panesonic VCR in to show "Secrets of the Superpsychics" and "Bambi Meets Godzilla" .
So I have to have any vidies portables.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
Very interesting. Thanks.
I'm struck by the brief period of time the subjects were allowed to evaluate the pictures before selecting. No doubt to facilitate them making a very instinctual response. Later they rationally justify whatever choice they made on the spur of the moment. That fits with other stuff I've ready along the same lines regarding visceral responses and rational reasoning. It also fits with my general unscientific observations about how people behave. People can rationally justify just about any decision they make, especially about subjective stuff such as which one they like better.
edited to add: And I'm so bad with faces, I could easily forget which ones I picked out over the course of the experiment. Heck, they could toss in faces I'd never seen and I might not notice after looking over a few dozen faces in short succession.
Last edited:
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Here is a mention of the experiment in Dutch, which I am linking to primarily because it contains a videoclip. Click in the box labelled 'video', take some educated guesses how to set your videopreferences and see for yourself how sneaky the experiment is. I had to see the video again to convince myself that there really was a switch going on.
The article mentions that it made no difference whether the women on the photos looked similar or very different. Switching a blonde for a brunette gives the same result. It also did not make any difference how long the test subjects were allowed to see the photos. They make the same mistake whether they only get two seconds to see the photos, or can take as much time as they want to make a choice.
The article mentions that it made no difference whether the women on the photos looked similar or very different. Switching a blonde for a brunette gives the same result. It also did not make any difference how long the test subjects were allowed to see the photos. They make the same mistake whether they only get two seconds to see the photos, or can take as much time as they want to make a choice.
That's just like when Bevis and Butthead were at a gym, and one of them was accidentally checking out a dude who he thought was a lady!!!
This is silly. If you looked at 15 of your friends' holiday snaps and they swapped three, would you notice?
No, because you don't care.
Young women's faces are bland. Were any of them blue? Hideously ugly? Memorable in any way?
I can tell an apple from a banana because I LIKE bananas. I care whether I get a real apple or a real banana.
'FHM' or 'Maxim' did a photospread of favourite models a few years ago. A dozen blandly pretty twentysomethings in black bikinis. They were as similar as clones.
Repeat the test using photos of cars, or anything the subjects care about as individual items, rather than en bloc. Do I care which picture of 15 unknown women I see? No. But Golf GTis get my attention.
No, because you don't care.
Young women's faces are bland. Were any of them blue? Hideously ugly? Memorable in any way?
I can tell an apple from a banana because I LIKE bananas. I care whether I get a real apple or a real banana.
'FHM' or 'Maxim' did a photospread of favourite models a few years ago. A dozen blandly pretty twentysomethings in black bikinis. They were as similar as clones.
Repeat the test using photos of cars, or anything the subjects care about as individual items, rather than en bloc. Do I care which picture of 15 unknown women I see? No. But Golf GTis get my attention.
Last edited:
I think you are right - I have previously done psychological tests where the questions were just rubbish and I didn't care about the answer - I suspect a similar scenario here. We should not discount the motives and interest of the subjects.
BTW - I suspected with the tests that I had to do that caring about the answers would have been some sort of indicator in itself.
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
When the subject is sufficiently distracted, the changes can be substantial and go unnoticed. I'm not sure that really applies here, though, since the subjects were asked to evaluate the beauty of each face and then had the face replaced with a different one. If one of them was a gorilla, they would almost certainly have noticed.
LordoftheLeftHand
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,188
I've noticed similar tendencies in myself. Sometimes I can't seem to remember the color of objects I just saw (like cars driving past).
LLH
LLH
Mr. Sam, or may I call you Soapy?
I can't help but wonder how you made the choice to prefer Golf GTis to young women. ;-)
The value of this study is not related to our interests in long held preferences but in how we form initial preferences. Wasn't there a time in your life when you couldn't tell a Golf GTi from some other car?
I think back to my teen years and I remember that all the guys felt a pressure to choose between Fords & Chevys. None of us had any profound reasons for making the choice, but once made, the choices had to be defended! Now, 40 years later, I believe that those choices still have some subtle influence on auto purchase decisions.
I think that the implications of how we make our choices is profound. We make new decisions every day that are the equivalent of "six of one, half dozen of the other". We make those choices and usually the difference is inconsequential. Sometimes the choice turns into a life altering path.
What if, as a young man, you chose one of those young women's faces for a date and she sent her best friend or worst enemy instead?
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Choice Blindness = Don’t Care.
If I was in a similar experiment with controlled processes to record my answers, I would assume that all of the data is being record accurately. If the researcher asks me why I chose 1A over 1B, my first thought process would be to try to remember the reasoning for my decision. If that decision was made in a couple of seconds without much preference one way or another, then I don’t really have any cognizant reason for the decision. So I would look at the pictures and try to find any reasons why 1A would be preferential to 1B and spout them off. In the process of coming up with a reason to choose 1A over 1B, my thought exclusively about the good things about 1A and the bad things about 1B. So I could become convinced that I prefer 1A over 1B. I now have cognizant reasons for my decision.
If I had actually selected 1B over 1A in the test, while my brain is reeling to answer the question of reason for my decision, and already having assumed the accuracy of the data presented, there would have to be some remembrance of the reasoning for the decision or enough significant difference in preference to derail the thought process from answering WHY you made chose to whether you actually MADE that choice. In order to get that derailment, there would have to be a cognizant remembrance of the reason for the decision that would outweigh the assumption that the researcher is giving you accurate data.
For me, I would probably have to be pretty darn sure that the researchers have my selections wrong before I would call them on it. Especially when I am assuming this is a scientific test that must record accurate data. Especially when being asks about reasons for decisions and not asks for my decisions. There would have to be a very clear recollection of the reasons for my test trial decision or a very big difference in my post-test assessment of the pictures to really say “I think you got my selections wrong.”
The procedures for the test seem specifically designed for this purpose. It’s like a magic trick. Move things around fast. Do a “behind the scenes” switcheroo. Distract from the switcheroo. Verify that they believe such-and-such happened. Watch in amazement when you display that something else happened. Parlor tricks.
Choice Blindness = Don't remember, Don't know, Don’t Care.
Baloney. It gets to the very heart of how we don't really think about and clearly remember each and every decision that is made in a long series of decisions that we don't care much about. Well, duh.
If I was in a similar experiment with controlled processes to record my answers, I would assume that all of the data is being record accurately. If the researcher asks me why I chose 1A over 1B, my first thought process would be to try to remember the reasoning for my decision. If that decision was made in a couple of seconds without much preference one way or another, then I don’t really have any cognizant reason for the decision. So I would look at the pictures and try to find any reasons why 1A would be preferential to 1B and spout them off. In the process of coming up with a reason to choose 1A over 1B, my thought exclusively about the good things about 1A and the bad things about 1B. So I could become convinced that I prefer 1A over 1B. I now have cognizant reasons for my decision.
If I had actually selected 1B over 1A in the test, while my brain is reeling to answer the question of reason for my decision, and already having assumed the accuracy of the data presented, there would have to be some remembrance of the reasoning for the decision or enough significant difference in preference to derail the thought process from answering WHY you made chose to whether you actually MADE that choice. In order to get that derailment, there would have to be a cognizant remembrance of the reason for the decision that would outweigh the assumption that the researcher is giving you accurate data.
For me, I would probably have to be pretty darn sure that the researchers have my selections wrong before I would call them on it. Especially when I am assuming this is a scientific test that must record accurate data. Especially when being asks about reasons for decisions and not asks for my decisions. There would have to be a very clear recollection of the reasons for my test trial decision or a very big difference in my post-test assessment of the pictures to really say “I think you got my selections wrong.”
The procedures for the test seem specifically designed for this purpose. It’s like a magic trick. Move things around fast. Do a “behind the scenes” switcheroo. Distract from the switcheroo. Verify that they believe such-and-such happened. Watch in amazement when you display that something else happened. Parlor tricks.
No. It would be like going to the market and being asked to choose preferences between 15 different sets of fruits in 2 seconds while people record your selections with scientific tools and then reading the selections back to you and asking why you picked each one and switching selection 12 from apple to banana and you don’t remember because you like bananas as much as apples and just give some examples things that you like about bananas more than apples.
Choice Blindness = Don't remember, Don't know, Don’t Care.