Read Pages 67-85: The Chapter entitled, Seven Seconds in The Bronx.
Then, go through each section and explain how it applies to our study of Perception. Just write 2-3 sentences and be sure to provide a quote to support your argument.
1.Three Fatal Mistakes
This chapter talks about 3 officers thin-slicing a black man in the Bronx. They made several split-second judgements without reason that were big mistakes- Gladwell says "Carroll sized him up and in that instant decided he looked suspicious."(69). We have been studying how people make split-second judgements based on past experiences and pre-associations, and this is what these policemen did.
2. The Theory of Mind Reading
In this chapter, there is a professor who can read people's faces, their wrinkles, bumps and uses of certain facial muscles, to tell how they are feeling, what they are thinking, and occasionally even what kind of person they are. "Tomkins believed that faces... held valuable clues to inner emotions and motivations."(70) We talked a bit in class about how in knowledge by acquaintance relies partially on reading someone's facial/body language over periods of time, again and again, to be acquainted with them, their moods, and their reactions. Our perceptions of people's moods and personalities are in part formed by what they communicate with their faces.
3. The naked Face
This section explains how there are voluntary and involuntary facial expressions that we make, some so microscopic they can be detected "only if electrical sensors are attached to the face. But it's always there."(74). It also describes the tests that have been done to form the theory that emotions can start FROM the face, not just be reflected in it. We discussed this possibility in class, and it goes back to our perception of things that are going on (how our emotions make us perceive things in different ways) and how maybe there are other things that can affect our perception, like what we are doing with our face.
4. A Man, A Woman and a Lightswitch
This chapter tells of how an autistic person perceives things; they see people just as other objects, no more important than a lightswitch. "because he lacks one very basic ability - the ability to mind-read - he can... come to a conclusion that is socially completely and catastrophically wrong."(77) We need this ability to "mind-read" to be able to tell people's feelings and emotions, and a number of other things...
5. Arguing with a Dog
Our senses of perception can be altered or narrowed in certain conditions. One police officer said of himself during a shooting:"I didn't hear a thing, not one thing. Alan had fired one round when I shot my first pair, but I didn't hear him shoot.... I don't even remember pushing myself up."(78). Your body can narrow your senses to deal with the threat or stressing thing in front of you, which can be good, but if it goes too much, than bad things start happening, your brain can partially shut down, you can be mind-blind, etc. They describe trying to talk to an extremely frightened person like trying to argue with a dog, because they don't have the full use of a normal human brain.
6. Running Out of White Space
On page 80 it says "'When you remove time'...'you are subject to the lowest-quality intuitive reaction.'" This relates to the IAT test and how, because you are forced to make decisions in a fraction of a second, you are more likely to fall prey to prior associations and worse judgements.
7. Something Told Me...
We talked some in class about whether or not our mind-reading skills can be improved and if we can escape the typical mistakes of jumping to conclusions based on those wrong judgements. This chapter talks about that as well, and they argue that we CAN improve on this by preparing ourselves with "training" to respond to high stress situations calmly and be able to think through things in our brains in a matter of seconds. "look at how the officer's experience and skill allowed him to stretch out that fraction of time, to slow the situation down, to keep gathering information until the last possible moment."(84)
8. Tragedy on Wheeler Ave.
The truth about the Diallo incident was that he didn't HAVE a gun and the police officers perceived his WALLET as a gun in their stressed faction-of-a-second decision before they opened fire on Diallo. It says of the police officer, "He's not mind-reading now. He's effectively autistic."(84). Oh, how wrong our perception can be...
Monday, October 27, 2008
Blink #1
Chapter Three: The Warren Harding Error
1. Describe how Warren Harding rose through the Republican Party to become President in 1920.
Harding was a man who got by on his looks, which happened to be very good and get him elected for things simply because he LOOKED like a good representative; "he grew more and more irresistibly distinguished-looking."(27) Through these good looks, the urging of his wife, Florence, and the stage managing of ("scheming") Harry Daugherty "He advanced steadily from local Ohio politics"(27).
2. Why does the author believe that people were in error in promoting Harding to higher office?
"Harding was not a particularly intelligent man. He liked to play poker and golf and to drink, and, most of all, to chase women."(27) Warren Harding was not quite the well-abled gentleman that he "looked" to be... It is probably not such a good idea to elect him to a higher office in running your country. And, he turned out to be one of the worst presidents of America.
3. What was the point of the “Implicit Association Test (IAT)?”
The point of the test is to show us that "We make connections much more quickly between pairs of ideas that are already related in our minds than we do between pairs of ideas that are unfamiliar to us."(29) It shows us our automatic, subconscious preferences and prejudice by administering a few simple tests of placing words and pictures into categories.
4. What are the advantages to completing the IAT on computer? Why does Gladwell believe the IAT has become “so popular in recent years?”
The computer can measure our time of response down to the millisecond, magnifying our tendency to take longer to associate things we are not familiar with.
Gladwell claims this test has become very popular because it "hits you over the head with its conclusions" and "the effects it is measuring are not subtle"(30). This test clearly demonstrates the effetcs of prior associations in our minds and our ability/speed to overcome them.
1. Describe how Warren Harding rose through the Republican Party to become President in 1920.
Harding was a man who got by on his looks, which happened to be very good and get him elected for things simply because he LOOKED like a good representative; "he grew more and more irresistibly distinguished-looking."(27) Through these good looks, the urging of his wife, Florence, and the stage managing of ("scheming") Harry Daugherty "He advanced steadily from local Ohio politics"(27).
2. Why does the author believe that people were in error in promoting Harding to higher office?
"Harding was not a particularly intelligent man. He liked to play poker and golf and to drink, and, most of all, to chase women."(27) Warren Harding was not quite the well-abled gentleman that he "looked" to be... It is probably not such a good idea to elect him to a higher office in running your country. And, he turned out to be one of the worst presidents of America.
3. What was the point of the “Implicit Association Test (IAT)?”
The point of the test is to show us that "We make connections much more quickly between pairs of ideas that are already related in our minds than we do between pairs of ideas that are unfamiliar to us."(29) It shows us our automatic, subconscious preferences and prejudice by administering a few simple tests of placing words and pictures into categories.
4. What are the advantages to completing the IAT on computer? Why does Gladwell believe the IAT has become “so popular in recent years?”
The computer can measure our time of response down to the millisecond, magnifying our tendency to take longer to associate things we are not familiar with.
Gladwell claims this test has become very popular because it "hits you over the head with its conclusions" and "the effects it is measuring are not subtle"(30). This test clearly demonstrates the effetcs of prior associations in our minds and our ability/speed to overcome them.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sense Perception Presentation
What were your impressions of the lecture and Test from Dr. Gillian? In your opinion, what should the average person know about how our brain perceives the world? What are the larger implications of this?
The lecture and test from Dr. Gilligan were very interesting and eye-opening in that from them, I realized how much we humans THINK we pick up on things but really don't, etc. When she gave us the perception test, I was kind of shocked about how many things I completely missed, and I wasn't the only one in the class.
I think it is very important to be informed with facts, such as the particlars of the biology of human senses, before we can judge whether certain knowledge can be justified and how. However, after taking this test and learning of the many faults of the human to capture the truth through empiricism (i.e. our brain "corrects" much of what we see/read, etc.) leads to doubting the true justification of any 'truth'. If I didn't even notice that it said "too too" on the sign, how can I be sure that I am ever reading certain things correctly?
On one hand, I think everyone ("the average person") should know the information presented to us by Dr. Gilligan, and more. It is important for us to know how our brain and body really function and produce certain perceptions, which are not always right, such as the tendency of our brain to "fix" things or go towards the familiar. On the other hand, I am pretty sure the average person does not know all this information, but we (the human race) have done pretty well so far... Obviously occasional mistakes are made; Susan thinks she saw Simon murder Raphael, and she was wrong. Those things happen in the court and in life. Maybe we should try to fix or reduce these ocurrences, but as of yet I am not sure how and I have no answer.
I am not sure what the implications question is referring to, but I guess this implies that we need a better system of education around the world to expose our human follies of perceptions, and that we should be careful what we base out justification of truth/knowledge on. Empirical 'knowldge' is not seeming like the most reliable thing after taking that perception test...
The lecture and test from Dr. Gilligan were very interesting and eye-opening in that from them, I realized how much we humans THINK we pick up on things but really don't, etc. When she gave us the perception test, I was kind of shocked about how many things I completely missed, and I wasn't the only one in the class.
I think it is very important to be informed with facts, such as the particlars of the biology of human senses, before we can judge whether certain knowledge can be justified and how. However, after taking this test and learning of the many faults of the human to capture the truth through empiricism (i.e. our brain "corrects" much of what we see/read, etc.) leads to doubting the true justification of any 'truth'. If I didn't even notice that it said "too too" on the sign, how can I be sure that I am ever reading certain things correctly?
On one hand, I think everyone ("the average person") should know the information presented to us by Dr. Gilligan, and more. It is important for us to know how our brain and body really function and produce certain perceptions, which are not always right, such as the tendency of our brain to "fix" things or go towards the familiar. On the other hand, I am pretty sure the average person does not know all this information, but we (the human race) have done pretty well so far... Obviously occasional mistakes are made; Susan thinks she saw Simon murder Raphael, and she was wrong. Those things happen in the court and in life. Maybe we should try to fix or reduce these ocurrences, but as of yet I am not sure how and I have no answer.
I am not sure what the implications question is referring to, but I guess this implies that we need a better system of education around the world to expose our human follies of perceptions, and that we should be careful what we base out justification of truth/knowledge on. Empirical 'knowldge' is not seeming like the most reliable thing after taking that perception test...
Thursday, October 9, 2008
"The Mouse Who Ate the Cheese" 10-9-08
1. Bill was sure he KNEW the mouse ate the cheese because he has empirical knowledge of it; he witnessed the act with his own eyes (while he knew he was not drunk, dreaming, or hallucinating). This reason is a good one because empiracal knowledge is considered one of the four justifications of truth; although they can be faulty, they are the closest justifications of truth that we can trust.
2. Their reasons for claiming they knew it was the truth is that it came from a reliable source; they knew Bill and that he was trustworthy and not drunk. I don't think their reasons were quite adequate because, while we know it was the truth, I don't think THEY really can KNOW, because theoretically, Bill could have made a mistake and only THOUGHT he saw the mouse-he may be trustworthy but the human brain and body is not perfect 100% of the time. Virginia and Adrian had no personal connection to what happened and they are putting a large amount of trust in one person (who was bored and could have POSSIBLY imagined it),
3. She could not KNOW a mouse ate the cheese because that is only her guess; she had no personal connection to or evidence of this supposed act. It is not justified, and she knows this, so she only claims belief. Maybe it was giant ants who had come and carried it off instead, how should she know?
4. Yes they all had to believe the mouse ate the cheese because you cannot KNOW something without believing it, and if they claim to KNOW, they must first believe. They had a firm conviction (not the religious kind, i just can't think of the right word) that it happened and they have no doubt about it. You cannot say "I KNOW the car is red" but not believe it... same with the mouse- you got to believe before you can know.
5. George obviously could not KNOW the mouse ate the cheese because he does not believe it. He does not believe it because he has so convinced himself, as have the authorative terminators, that there could not POSSIBLY be mice in the flat. He can not even comprehend it because this is what he has been believing, and he can't get out of the state of mind that THERE ARE NO MICE HERE. I think even if he SAW the mouse he still might not be convinced because he might brush it off as a trick of the mind, of paranoia or the like. But I think if he TOUCHED the mouse, felt it run over his foot or something, and then heard it gobbling up the cheese with glee he might believe it. Empirical knowledge is often the easiest to trust when one does not trust the judgement of others.
6. Everyone would have KNOWN the mouse ate the cheese if they were all "reasonable" and could comprehend and believe truth when they saw/felt/etc it. Perhaps if Bill had taken a video of the mouse eating the cheese, so that everyone could be sure they were not just hallucinating, they would all know it.
This story shows us that we obtain knowledge in different ways, either by empirical knowledge, rationalism, etc. Since Bill seemed the most firm in his belief and knowledge, to me it seems to show that personal experience is often the most common/accepted way of obtaining knowledge. A problem of knowledge this points out is the possibility for faults in justification of the "truth". For example, George was told by authority (the terminators) that there were no mice, and he knew from that that there were none. However, we do not know if the terminators were correct in their analyzation (at the time, there could have been that mouse there, or not, we don't know.) Virginia and Adrian claim to know the fact because they heard it from a reliable source, but what IF he had been mistaken??
2. Their reasons for claiming they knew it was the truth is that it came from a reliable source; they knew Bill and that he was trustworthy and not drunk. I don't think their reasons were quite adequate because, while we know it was the truth, I don't think THEY really can KNOW, because theoretically, Bill could have made a mistake and only THOUGHT he saw the mouse-he may be trustworthy but the human brain and body is not perfect 100% of the time. Virginia and Adrian had no personal connection to what happened and they are putting a large amount of trust in one person (who was bored and could have POSSIBLY imagined it),
3. She could not KNOW a mouse ate the cheese because that is only her guess; she had no personal connection to or evidence of this supposed act. It is not justified, and she knows this, so she only claims belief. Maybe it was giant ants who had come and carried it off instead, how should she know?
4. Yes they all had to believe the mouse ate the cheese because you cannot KNOW something without believing it, and if they claim to KNOW, they must first believe. They had a firm conviction (not the religious kind, i just can't think of the right word) that it happened and they have no doubt about it. You cannot say "I KNOW the car is red" but not believe it... same with the mouse- you got to believe before you can know.
5. George obviously could not KNOW the mouse ate the cheese because he does not believe it. He does not believe it because he has so convinced himself, as have the authorative terminators, that there could not POSSIBLY be mice in the flat. He can not even comprehend it because this is what he has been believing, and he can't get out of the state of mind that THERE ARE NO MICE HERE. I think even if he SAW the mouse he still might not be convinced because he might brush it off as a trick of the mind, of paranoia or the like. But I think if he TOUCHED the mouse, felt it run over his foot or something, and then heard it gobbling up the cheese with glee he might believe it. Empirical knowledge is often the easiest to trust when one does not trust the judgement of others.
6. Everyone would have KNOWN the mouse ate the cheese if they were all "reasonable" and could comprehend and believe truth when they saw/felt/etc it. Perhaps if Bill had taken a video of the mouse eating the cheese, so that everyone could be sure they were not just hallucinating, they would all know it.
This story shows us that we obtain knowledge in different ways, either by empirical knowledge, rationalism, etc. Since Bill seemed the most firm in his belief and knowledge, to me it seems to show that personal experience is often the most common/accepted way of obtaining knowledge. A problem of knowledge this points out is the possibility for faults in justification of the "truth". For example, George was told by authority (the terminators) that there were no mice, and he knew from that that there were none. However, we do not know if the terminators were correct in their analyzation (at the time, there could have been that mouse there, or not, we don't know.) Virginia and Adrian claim to know the fact because they heard it from a reliable source, but what IF he had been mistaken??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)