Interpretation of movement skewed by affinity
A study by USC researchers shows that whether you like the person you're watching can actually have an effect on brain activity related to motor actions and lead to "differential processing" -- for example, thinking the person you dislike is moving more slowly than they actually are.
Read the full article and translate it into socionics gibberish at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1006170905.htm
You are really just speeding up your reflexes to take better aim with your assault rifle.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Thank you for remaining consistent as a source of idiotic commentary.
I think this can make sense. If you like someone, you're much more observant of their body language, and look for more meaning and communication in their actions. Because you're focusing on it more in your mind, you see it more, and pick up on more microscopic movements, gestures, twitches, and the person seems more 'alive', than those you don't like. I guess someone's perception is still their reality.Originally Posted by k0rpsy
No. The difference in how bodily movements are perceived is not a quantitative one of sensitivity to stimuli. It is a qualitative one in how those movements are evaluated and reacted to. This evaluation occurs according to whether observed people are believed to belong to a friendly social group or one that is competitive with or antithetical to one's friendly social group(s).
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 10-07-2012 at 06:31 AM. Reason: typo
So observation being equal, objective speed evaluation is influenced by subjective like/dislike.
So if you hate Usain Bolt, he becomes the slowest man in the world?
Find where the article mentions proportionality and I'll give lukewarm assent to your absurd reduction. It only gave judgment of speed as a single example of how this cognitive bias can affect interpretation of motion.So observation being equal, objective speed evaluation is influenced by subjective like/dislike.
So if you hate Usain Bolt, he becomes the slowest man in the world?
Factors probably more salient in the minds of affected observers are the worth and motivations of the person being watched. Using the scenario you provided, a Bolt detractor is not only likely to downplay his vaunted speed, but also, for instance, to suspect mind games and trickery if he makes false starts ("He's obviously trying to psych out the officials and other sprinters instead of running a clean race, what a slimy douche!"), and to regard him as unwarrantedly vain and unsportsmanlike if he struts a bit after winning a race.
Have you read the Unbearable Lightness of Being? It's an ok book, gets kinda hokey, but the notion of romantic memory sort of just completely sold me on the idea that my perception is altered by my emotional world. Granted that's just philosophy and this is actual science, which in a lot of ways is much cooler.
Easy Day
Here's another one:
Study demonstrates how fear can skew spatial perception
Findings show strong implications for understanding clinical phobias
That snake heading towards you may be further away than it appears. Fear can skew our perception of approaching objects, causing us to underestimate the distance of a threatening one, finds a study published in Current Biology.
"Our results show that emotion and perception are not fully dissociable in the mind," says Emory University psychologist Stella Lourenco, co-author of the study. "Fear can alter even basic aspects of how we perceive the world around us. This has clear implications for understanding clinical phobias."
Lourenco conducted the research with Matthew Longo, a psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London.
People generally have a well-developed sense for when objects heading towards them will make contact, including a split-second cushion for dodging or blocking the object, if necessary. The researchers set up an experiment to test the effect of fear on the accuracy of that skill.
Study participants made time-to-collision judgments of images on a computer screen. The images expanded in size over one second before disappearing, to simulate "looming," an optical pattern used instinctively to judge collision time. The study participants were instructed to gauge when each of the visual stimuli on the computer screen would have collided with them by pressing a button.
The participants tended to underestimate the collision time for images of threatening objects, such as a snake or spider, as compared to non-threatening images, such as a rabbit or butterfly.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sdh101912.php
These are outstanding points you've made. Here's another good example from a recent event, with Rmoney casually placing an unknown object on the podium that was popularly interpreted as being either a folded tissue or a cheat-sheet.
If you discussed this with kith and kin you probably noted that their partisan affiliations played a decisive role in determining their evaluations of Romney's action, with the rightward-leaning generally seeing it as a simple tissue for mopping his brow under the hot stage lights, and the leftward-leaning usually seeing it as an means of winning the debate dishonestly. Now since it has pretty much been conclusively shown that the mystery item was a plain ol' snot-rag, this nicely illustrates how preexisting sentiment toward a person can cause the unconscious assignment of false value and meaning to perceptions.
Reply With Quote
