In a series of CFS experiments, the researchers asked volunteers whether or not they could see a specific object, such as a dog. Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When it was not displayed or when the image was of another animal such as a zebra or kangaroo, the volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But when a dog was displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the volunteers were significantly more likely to become aware of it.That article 'took me back' (as opposed to some weird rhetorical device) to a radio program I had heard called Is Free Will Really Free?
It's scary to think that choice might just be an illusion. Perhaps we are not so in control as we would like to be. In a conversation at the 92nd St Y, Malcolm Gladwell talks to Robert about the common sense of dissatisfaction felt by people required to justify a choice to others before they made it, and he brings up the unsettling idea of priming--that certain stimuli could predispose us toward certain choices or behaviors. Yale psychology professor John Bargh takes us a step further by describing an experiment where researcher Lawrence Williams was able to alter people's opinions without their knowledge using nothing but a simple cup of coffee.So, what does coffee have to do with it, anything, dogs, zebra, kangaroo, the volunteers, whatever. Aside from the fact that I have to close this post, which, aside from "choosing" the topic to base the post upon, satisfactorily closing the post seems to be the hardest part.
Listening to Imus, this morning, I heard the following clip.
Ashton Kutcher Speech - Teen Choice Awards
20 comments:
Goldenrod.
Actually it's wingstem, which comes out in late August and holds yellow's place until goldenrod replaces it.
There's very little reproductive disadvantage to believing in free will.
The whole bit about "continuous flash suppression" (CFS), verbal/optical stimulation and its relationship to free will or not, is topically rather old...like 1960's old where it was a posed in a couple of mandatory applied psychology courses I had to take, one lecture & TA and the other Seminar & Lab with a senior TA. Frankly, it is a given in all industrial and military applications I am aware of...however, I am not aware of everything, so correct me if I am wrong. All I am saying is nothing I just read is new to me, decades old in fact, and born out by experience. It may, however, be "new" to the folks of this new generation of "scientists" who apparently lack semantic skills to discover a path already taken.
A couple of applied relationships include the original (1960's) dispute over instrumentation in the F-111 fighter bomber design, and my later experience in re-fitting M48 tanks for use by foreign national soldiers. The Pentagon's plan did NOT include printed verbal cues below or on instruments and controls ... e.g. they were a maze of confusion. My cure, agreed to by my commander was to hire a nice indigenous lady with calligraphy skills to burnish off the English labels and paint on native language labels. Immediately we ceased having our trainees tearing across firing ranges pell mell with the turret spinning like a top or the canon barrel raising and depressing like a bobble head.
The perception of the analog gages and the various levers and pedals became clear to the indigenous soldiers the minute we gave them the same cues we gave our own, but in their language.
On the positive side, I was pleasantly surprised by Kutcher's succinct and truthful short speech. I think he was right on all three points.
"Perhaps we are not so in control as we would like to be."
Malcolm Gladwell's existence was proof enough for me.
I always do things on purpose, intentionally or deliberately.
Can't we stop branding people racist and just use ear tags.
rhhardin...sure, ear tags would be cool, and they can be had with RFID for tracking now as well.
However, EBL might object as not her style. :-]
Greasing wheels is for squeaking.
The right cliche is grease the skids of perception.
"The right cliche is grease the skids of perception."
Incorrect. It is set the frequency to mind manipulation.
One man's cliché is another man's idiom.
These are the Annie posts I hated.
Please explain, Nick.
On of my favorite examples of camouflage art is Bev Doolittle's Woodland Encounter. What else do you see besides the fox, an animal?
Words do influence what we see, just thinking about the words help, and the other senses (sound, touch, smell) assist as well. Interesting topic, but as I said, one that has been covered for a long time now and maybe we're still finding next aspects to it.
In the past I had training to learn to see camouflage objects of interest wearing specialized clothing in terrain that blurred the lines. Here's an example. What do you see? You presume you are looking for men and that presumption helps recognition.
It seems a lot like selective attention, like the Invisible Gorilla Test (though that tests for the inattention component) except that this is subconscious.
Deborah, They are hard to follow, not straightforward. I'm not saying I'm right, by any means. It is a matter of taste. One person's love is another's hate. I would hate a world where we all loved and hated the same things.
I've posted this 16-second Bloggingheads clip before, but I think it's important to realize that social evolution is where civilization plays out, and the winners will be the ones who can best convert the proles into flaccid consumers.
ndspinelli said...
These are the Annie posts I hated.
That was exactly my first reaction to this post as well. TOP's persistent posts about "words" with dithering about meaning ... and their imapact.
Then I re-read it and found Lem's post more a commentary on a question that has answers, is not new age and semantically wacko, and most importantly, Lem was NOT trying to "tell" me or any of us what "we" should be thinking if were had any comprehension at all, blah blah blah.
My first comment, now that I re-read it, might seem dismissive, but that is not how I meant it. I'm just a dick sometimes...hell it is my name after all.
I believe, TOP kidded my abusive use of boolean operator AND. Since then, it has taken me a bit of effort to keep from seeing and everywhere. I was paying overdo attention to "and".
For example, there were/are 32 and IED's in this article alone. First I thought that was too much. Now, I don't know. I'm trying to avoid using "and" when I can.
Lem said...
I believe, TOP kidded my abusive use of boolean operator AND ...
Lem, first I doubt TOP knows squat about Boolean Operators. However, that is part of what some of us found objectionable on some posts there, an attempt to over reach and make poor cross references. The term "AND" has necessary applications in syntax constituency which is only remotely related to query scripts and SQL, whihc in turn are subsequent to the term's use in English, Spanish, and other Latinate languages. In writing you use "and" where you need to use "and" for constituency...period. You are not linking "joins" but concepts in a sentence. In that capacity use it as you will...opinions are just that, and not law.
Post a Comment