a) What is 'Locked-in syndrome'? Why would one consider Bauby's condition a prison? What is the significance of The Butterfly?
b) What was Bauby's "frightening truth'?
c) In your opinion, how do you think Bauby should measure progress? Why do you think Bauby ends the chapter "Prayer" with the phrase, "I set out for the kingdom of slumber with this wonderful talisman, which shields me from all harm."
A) "Locked-in syndrome" is when, "paralyzed from head to toe, the patient, his mind intact, is imprisoned inside his own body, unable to speak or move."(4) Bauby's condition could be considered a prison because he is imprisoned in his body, or his hospital room, or wherever others decide to place him. He has no control over what he does or how he moves, and all his natural freedoms have been stripped from him; he cannot speak, walk around, etc. The butterfly he mentions when describing how his mind takes off signifies the only freedom and joy he can have. Paralyzed, his mind is the only thing that can move around and go places on its own, and his takes off like a butterfly to amuse himself. His thoughts roam to different places and adventures, to books that he is thinking up.. it flies away.
B) While Bauby's "frightening truth" in his book was very unclear to me (he claims it hit him, but then I didn't catch the part where he really explains what the truth IS), I believe he meant the fact that he would be stuck in a wheelchair... for at least a very long time. After going through the big ordeal of dressing him, pushing him around in the wheelchair, undressing him and laying him back down, after everyone leaves and the wheelchair sits ominously by itself in the corner, Bauby comes to the realization that that is his fate, being wheeled around in an uncomfortable chair like the invalid he is. He isn't going to magically be able to walk again or be able to actually go the places his mind wanders to, assuming his clumsy wheelchair is not capable of flying...
C) I think Bauby should measure progress, since it's obviously not going to take place quickly, by how much he can move in the small things, or make some sort of noise, moving towards speech. If he tries to measure himself on too large a scale, like wanting to walk or talk completely, he will get discouraged when he cannot achieve those things quickly.
In his ending chapter of "Prayer" Bauby means that he went to sleep with the protection of God invoked by the prayers of his daughter, Celeste. I think he is probably so grateful for her thoughts and the comfort it brings him to know that she and her God are thinking of him and trying to help him. He needs that hope to cling onto, the belief that he is safe and taken care of, "shielded from all harm", so that he can survive and keep going.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Man Is The Measure: The Task of Perception
1. According to Abel, "Perception is active inquiry, not passive reception."(34) It is questioning and interpreting what you sense, not just simply sensing it.
2. By "seeing as" Abel means that "seeing" is more complicated than just receiving an image in your eyes and brain... You have to see that image AS something, interpret what it is, and this is what leads to doubt about what people think they see (Abel uses the example of astronomers not knowing for years whether or not they were seeing canals on Mars). Different people can see things as different things or in different ways.
3. "To see what is the case requires context, inference, concepts, experience, interpretation."(35) Context is the circumstances or situation in which you see something, which can help you "see as". Inference is deriving a conclusion from facts or premises. Concepts are general ideas or understandings, especially ones derived from specific instances or occurrences. Experience is apprehension or perception... through the senses or mind; active participation in events or activities, leading to accumulation of knowledge or skill. Interpretation is the explanation to oneself of the meaning of something.
4. Nietzsche means that the fault of perception is that it is individual interpretation; most of the time there is no "correct" perception of something: there IS no perfect perception, and everyone has their own separate one. Jastrow showed this in his drawing of a rabbit/duck which can be "correctly" seen as either a rabbit OR a duck, not just one. We did something similar in class when we took the perception test and counted the number of cubes displayed in a drawing on the screen, for which there were 2 "correct" answers.
5. When Abel writes "There is no sharp line dividing perception and illusion" he means that both perception and illusion are ambiguous, they are "not always evident in an image, and cannot always be isolated."(36) Neither one is clearly defined or can be verified as true or false. How do we know the way we perceive things isn't just an illusion?
6. The reason perception is selective by nature is that we receive more images and pieces of information from our senses than we can handle and make sense of, so we pick and choose which ones to think about. And our brains usually receive "what we expect, or want, or believe, or are used to."(36) We cannot focus on and interpret everything, so we focus on the ones most familiar to us and interpret them accordingly.
7. When he says "to perceive is to solve a problem" Abel means the problem of how we see things, how we determine what they are and come to an agreement within ourselves. Nothing is "clearly" defined when we sense it, we have to give it definition and decide what it means based on our past experiences, context, etc... And how will we do that? How will each of us interpret an image? This problem is solved by personal perception. It is what you make it, life is how you see it.
8. Social conditioning, the "natural" views of a society and the "natural" ways in which they see things, think about things, and draw things, is important in determining how things "naturally look" for individuals because if you are trained by your society to think of things and see things a certain way, what is familiar to you will feel "natural".
9. The Durer rhinoceros story is significant because it shows human tendency to represent things according to tradition or as one THINKS an object should be. Never having seen a rhinoceros, Durer made a "woodcut" of one based solely on second-hand evidence and his imagination. Apparently his representation was not very accurate but Bruce, criticizing it, drew an illustration of a rhino from life that was strongly (probably subconsciously) influenced by his IDEA of what a rhino SHOULD look like. The influence of convention was demonstrated in the showing of photographs to tribesmen who, confused, viewed the pictures only as "meaningless arrangements[s] of varying shades of grey on a piece of paper." If they are not used to an object or scene being depicted in 2D form on paper, it would not mean anything to them besides marks on a paper. It is not the real house, I can't go inside it, so why should I think it's a house?
10. Perspective drawing is influenced by convention because an artist will draw distance or location of objects or something, based on what their society/their brain tells them it should look like... It is not just SEE, DRAW; it is see, try to represent according to the conventions that you have been taught. If distance means less bright colors, that's how it is drawn, not necessarily the way your eyes are actually taking the picture in.
11. Abel means that if you believe something, you can actually "see" it... your mind will literally think it saw the thing you perceived. You become so convinced that you.. see it. In social sciences, tests with people watching a fixed candle flame have reported to see it moving because they have been convinced prior to this that it is moving. In the natural sciences, astronomers have failed to notice that they were seeing a planet which they refused to believe existed... Because these people BELIEVED something, they actually saw it (or didn't see it, respectively).
12. "Hearing as" is receiving auditory information which we then interpret and add to/take away so that it makes sense to our brain and the way we perceive how language is SUPPOSED to be and sound. For example, if we hear the word "we" instead of the word "me" but our brain knows what it is supposed to be in context, out brain will probably 'correct' it so that we think we do hear it AS "me" and we don't even notice the error.
2. By "seeing as" Abel means that "seeing" is more complicated than just receiving an image in your eyes and brain... You have to see that image AS something, interpret what it is, and this is what leads to doubt about what people think they see (Abel uses the example of astronomers not knowing for years whether or not they were seeing canals on Mars). Different people can see things as different things or in different ways.
3. "To see what is the case requires context, inference, concepts, experience, interpretation."(35) Context is the circumstances or situation in which you see something, which can help you "see as". Inference is deriving a conclusion from facts or premises. Concepts are general ideas or understandings, especially ones derived from specific instances or occurrences. Experience is apprehension or perception... through the senses or mind; active participation in events or activities, leading to accumulation of knowledge or skill. Interpretation is the explanation to oneself of the meaning of something.
4. Nietzsche means that the fault of perception is that it is individual interpretation; most of the time there is no "correct" perception of something: there IS no perfect perception, and everyone has their own separate one. Jastrow showed this in his drawing of a rabbit/duck which can be "correctly" seen as either a rabbit OR a duck, not just one. We did something similar in class when we took the perception test and counted the number of cubes displayed in a drawing on the screen, for which there were 2 "correct" answers.
5. When Abel writes "There is no sharp line dividing perception and illusion" he means that both perception and illusion are ambiguous, they are "not always evident in an image, and cannot always be isolated."(36) Neither one is clearly defined or can be verified as true or false. How do we know the way we perceive things isn't just an illusion?
6. The reason perception is selective by nature is that we receive more images and pieces of information from our senses than we can handle and make sense of, so we pick and choose which ones to think about. And our brains usually receive "what we expect, or want, or believe, or are used to."(36) We cannot focus on and interpret everything, so we focus on the ones most familiar to us and interpret them accordingly.
7. When he says "to perceive is to solve a problem" Abel means the problem of how we see things, how we determine what they are and come to an agreement within ourselves. Nothing is "clearly" defined when we sense it, we have to give it definition and decide what it means based on our past experiences, context, etc... And how will we do that? How will each of us interpret an image? This problem is solved by personal perception. It is what you make it, life is how you see it.
8. Social conditioning, the "natural" views of a society and the "natural" ways in which they see things, think about things, and draw things, is important in determining how things "naturally look" for individuals because if you are trained by your society to think of things and see things a certain way, what is familiar to you will feel "natural".
9. The Durer rhinoceros story is significant because it shows human tendency to represent things according to tradition or as one THINKS an object should be. Never having seen a rhinoceros, Durer made a "woodcut" of one based solely on second-hand evidence and his imagination. Apparently his representation was not very accurate but Bruce, criticizing it, drew an illustration of a rhino from life that was strongly (probably subconsciously) influenced by his IDEA of what a rhino SHOULD look like. The influence of convention was demonstrated in the showing of photographs to tribesmen who, confused, viewed the pictures only as "meaningless arrangements[s] of varying shades of grey on a piece of paper." If they are not used to an object or scene being depicted in 2D form on paper, it would not mean anything to them besides marks on a paper. It is not the real house, I can't go inside it, so why should I think it's a house?
10. Perspective drawing is influenced by convention because an artist will draw distance or location of objects or something, based on what their society/their brain tells them it should look like... It is not just SEE, DRAW; it is see, try to represent according to the conventions that you have been taught. If distance means less bright colors, that's how it is drawn, not necessarily the way your eyes are actually taking the picture in.
11. Abel means that if you believe something, you can actually "see" it... your mind will literally think it saw the thing you perceived. You become so convinced that you.. see it. In social sciences, tests with people watching a fixed candle flame have reported to see it moving because they have been convinced prior to this that it is moving. In the natural sciences, astronomers have failed to notice that they were seeing a planet which they refused to believe existed... Because these people BELIEVED something, they actually saw it (or didn't see it, respectively).
12. "Hearing as" is receiving auditory information which we then interpret and add to/take away so that it makes sense to our brain and the way we perceive how language is SUPPOSED to be and sound. For example, if we hear the word "we" instead of the word "me" but our brain knows what it is supposed to be in context, out brain will probably 'correct' it so that we think we do hear it AS "me" and we don't even notice the error.
Monday, November 3, 2008
blink #1 (continued)
5. Why, according to Gladwell, did he become mortified upon completion of the first part of the IAT test on race? What occurred on the second part of the IAT test?
Gladwell said that in part one of the test, when he had to match faces and words with categories of race and good/bad, he had a hard time putting "glorious" with "good" when "good" was in the "African American" column or "evil" with "bad" when "bad" was paired with "European American". He was mortified that he had to think so much about this and obviously had a strong pro-white association. On the second part of the test, the category pairings were switched, so that "European American" was with "good" and "African American" with "bad". This time, Gladwell had "no trouble at all" pairing the words.
6. Did it make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test? What does the author believe is the reason for our answers on the IAT (i.e. what does the IAT measure)?
It did NOT make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test, he could not score better. He believes that our answers, which take longer to complete when "African American" is paired with "good", measures our "unconscious attitudes" and "immediate, automatic associations". We have pre-formed associations built into out brains by society, our experiences, the media, etc. and that is why we do not score well on this test, not because we are really RACIST.
7. If Gladwell is correct, that your unconscious acts as a computer that “crunches all the data” from our lives and “it forms an opinion”; would you consider this to your true self? Please explain your answer.
To some extent I agree with Gladwell as applies to my own life, but I must say, I can't fully be sure because the subconscious associations and opinions Gladwell is talking about, if I make them, I do not really KNOW I am making them. However, I have noticed that sometimes I will catch myself making pre-judgements, and I am pretty shocked because "within myself" I believe all races and genders are equal and that judgements, pre-associations/generalizations without good reasoning should not be made. Yet, because I have seen so many films with black "gangstas" and such, I live in an area with a high concentration of whites and not much else, etc. I find myself more prone to be think a white person attractive than a black one. Gladwell's theory of course pertains to other areas in my life besides racial associations... Associating women with household duties and a mother role, teenage boys with laziness... only a few of the things that plague my daily subconscious judgements...
8. Does Gladwell feel that it matters if one has a “strongly pro-white pattern of associations?”
He says it does not matter in the sense that it does not deem you RACIST or hateful or a bad person or anything, but it kind of matters in the sense that it can affect the way things work in the world, for example, Gladwell says "if you have a strongly pro-white pattern of associations... that will affect the way you behave in the presence of a black person."
9. How does the Warren Harding error impact the business world?
Subconsciously, people tend to assume that because a a person is a man, tall, good/strong-looking, etc, he is more fit for the job or is more reliable. Thus they will be less likely to hire a woman, a black person, a fat person, or a short person, because of these previously formed associations. This can lead to a certain group of people, say, tall, white men, getting most of the jobs/positions/respect or whatever.
10. How does Bob Golomb’s strategy defeat the Warren Harding error?
According to Gladwell, Golomb is an expert at thin-slicing; he reads customers in moments and figures out what they are going through, how they are feeling, and how he should treat them accordingly. His two rules are to "take care of the customer" and to treat everyone like they have the same chance of buying a car, whether they are black, white, male, female, old, young... They could all buy a car today, so be polite and treat them nice. Take care of them. This is precisely what Golomb does, he does not prejudge people because he knows that prejudgements can be very wrong and people can surprise you and end up buying a car when you thought they looked to poor, etc. People love Golomb and are much more likely to buy a car from someone who treats them with respect and not just like a stupid customer to pull money out of.
11. What were the results of the Ayres study? What does Gladwell believe to be the explanation for these results?
The results of the study, in which each person on the "team" appeared equal and said and did the same exact things, were that white men were offered the lowest prices on cars, white women the second least, then black women, and finally black men with the highest offers on car prices. Gladwell believes that extreme racism or even a conscious decision to label the blacks/women as "lay-downs" was NOT the cause of these results but rather that it was the unconscious associations between women and minorities and "lay-downs" instilled by society, past experiences, what other car sellers have said, etc. that caused them to notice the biggest facts about these customers, race and gender, and make that slip-second link.
12. How does Gladwell believe you can change your score on the race IAT? How, according to Gladwell, can we apply this rule to our everyday lives? Do you agree?
Gladwell believes that we can better our score by reading/hearing about black people doing good things, like Martin Luther King, right before taking the test, and then we will have an easier time associating good things with black people. He thinks that we can apply this to our lives by exposing ourselves on a regular basis to minorities and "the best of their culture" so that we are familiar and comfortable with them and prevent our natural hesitation and discomfort towards unfamiliar things. I agree, in theory at least (I have not had much experience actually USING this technique, so I cannot really speak for its effectiveness), that this would help with our thin-slicing problem. For example, before participating in Operation Smile in Honduras, I viewed several pictures of children with cleft pallets, and learned some about it. I think this helped me not to be so shocked when I arrived and saw all these disfigured children who look so different than the privledged, healthy kids I am used to seeing.
Gladwell said that in part one of the test, when he had to match faces and words with categories of race and good/bad, he had a hard time putting "glorious" with "good" when "good" was in the "African American" column or "evil" with "bad" when "bad" was paired with "European American". He was mortified that he had to think so much about this and obviously had a strong pro-white association. On the second part of the test, the category pairings were switched, so that "European American" was with "good" and "African American" with "bad". This time, Gladwell had "no trouble at all" pairing the words.
6. Did it make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test? What does the author believe is the reason for our answers on the IAT (i.e. what does the IAT measure)?
It did NOT make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test, he could not score better. He believes that our answers, which take longer to complete when "African American" is paired with "good", measures our "unconscious attitudes" and "immediate, automatic associations". We have pre-formed associations built into out brains by society, our experiences, the media, etc. and that is why we do not score well on this test, not because we are really RACIST.
7. If Gladwell is correct, that your unconscious acts as a computer that “crunches all the data” from our lives and “it forms an opinion”; would you consider this to your true self? Please explain your answer.
To some extent I agree with Gladwell as applies to my own life, but I must say, I can't fully be sure because the subconscious associations and opinions Gladwell is talking about, if I make them, I do not really KNOW I am making them. However, I have noticed that sometimes I will catch myself making pre-judgements, and I am pretty shocked because "within myself" I believe all races and genders are equal and that judgements, pre-associations/generalizations without good reasoning should not be made. Yet, because I have seen so many films with black "gangstas" and such, I live in an area with a high concentration of whites and not much else, etc. I find myself more prone to be think a white person attractive than a black one. Gladwell's theory of course pertains to other areas in my life besides racial associations... Associating women with household duties and a mother role, teenage boys with laziness... only a few of the things that plague my daily subconscious judgements...
8. Does Gladwell feel that it matters if one has a “strongly pro-white pattern of associations?”
He says it does not matter in the sense that it does not deem you RACIST or hateful or a bad person or anything, but it kind of matters in the sense that it can affect the way things work in the world, for example, Gladwell says "if you have a strongly pro-white pattern of associations... that will affect the way you behave in the presence of a black person."
9. How does the Warren Harding error impact the business world?
Subconsciously, people tend to assume that because a a person is a man, tall, good/strong-looking, etc, he is more fit for the job or is more reliable. Thus they will be less likely to hire a woman, a black person, a fat person, or a short person, because of these previously formed associations. This can lead to a certain group of people, say, tall, white men, getting most of the jobs/positions/respect or whatever.
10. How does Bob Golomb’s strategy defeat the Warren Harding error?
According to Gladwell, Golomb is an expert at thin-slicing; he reads customers in moments and figures out what they are going through, how they are feeling, and how he should treat them accordingly. His two rules are to "take care of the customer" and to treat everyone like they have the same chance of buying a car, whether they are black, white, male, female, old, young... They could all buy a car today, so be polite and treat them nice. Take care of them. This is precisely what Golomb does, he does not prejudge people because he knows that prejudgements can be very wrong and people can surprise you and end up buying a car when you thought they looked to poor, etc. People love Golomb and are much more likely to buy a car from someone who treats them with respect and not just like a stupid customer to pull money out of.
11. What were the results of the Ayres study? What does Gladwell believe to be the explanation for these results?
The results of the study, in which each person on the "team" appeared equal and said and did the same exact things, were that white men were offered the lowest prices on cars, white women the second least, then black women, and finally black men with the highest offers on car prices. Gladwell believes that extreme racism or even a conscious decision to label the blacks/women as "lay-downs" was NOT the cause of these results but rather that it was the unconscious associations between women and minorities and "lay-downs" instilled by society, past experiences, what other car sellers have said, etc. that caused them to notice the biggest facts about these customers, race and gender, and make that slip-second link.
12. How does Gladwell believe you can change your score on the race IAT? How, according to Gladwell, can we apply this rule to our everyday lives? Do you agree?
Gladwell believes that we can better our score by reading/hearing about black people doing good things, like Martin Luther King, right before taking the test, and then we will have an easier time associating good things with black people. He thinks that we can apply this to our lives by exposing ourselves on a regular basis to minorities and "the best of their culture" so that we are familiar and comfortable with them and prevent our natural hesitation and discomfort towards unfamiliar things. I agree, in theory at least (I have not had much experience actually USING this technique, so I cannot really speak for its effectiveness), that this would help with our thin-slicing problem. For example, before participating in Operation Smile in Honduras, I viewed several pictures of children with cleft pallets, and learned some about it. I think this helped me not to be so shocked when I arrived and saw all these disfigured children who look so different than the privledged, healthy kids I am used to seeing.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Blink 2
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...
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...
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)