Comments on: Visual illusions and decision illusions

By: Hao

Hao — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:25:24 +0000

Not sure I agree with the perspective that optical illusions are “mistakes” or errors in our visual system. The visual system has evolved to provide us with “correct” information in the vast majority of situations; the alternative to being susceptible to some visual illusions is going to be a system that has a lower level of functionality. In the case of the color matching, our visual system informs us of what the color of the patch is independent of other effects, such as lighting.

By: ella

ella — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:53:10 +0000

Thanks for your sharing.so wonderful!wish you have a lovely day and Happy New Year. Hot sale MBTs Cheap MBT shoes

By: Namowal

Namowal — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:52:04 +0000

This reminds me of a visual illusion I fight at work. I often have to digitally remove props and markers from images, often by cloning (patching) from another part of the image. What seems like a matching area can turn out much brighter or darker. I've been doing this for years and it still trips me up. As you suggested, I'm sure poor decisions people make spring from a similar glitches: What seems to be a good idea (or even what seems to be true) may be something very different.

By: Steev Kelly

Steev Kelly — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:34:35 +0000

this article reminded of $75 traffic ticket i recieved in the mail a few days ago. at an intersection policed by a traffic camera, i was caught making a right on red. however, in the picture of the violation (http://tinyurl.com/ylfykau) you can see the traffic light in the intersection is a red arrow, instead of the universally common red light. i obviously ignored the sign saying no turn on “big red dot”, saw an arrow pointing right, & took the cue. busted. it’s like the test when you’re flashed the word “black” but it’s written in red text. when asked what color is the text, most respond “black”. i saw an icon that typically means “it’s ok to turn right”, but they manipulated it to mean “don’t turn right”. my visual brain was confused & acted on instinct. i really think this is a clever trap by the city & would be interested what percentage of people make that visual mistake.

By: Steven Sashen

Steven Sashen — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:51:47 +0000

I’ve been saying for years that the most evolved aspect of our brain is the ability to completely discount how inaccurate it is.

Visual illusions should send us running, screaming, from the room as we recognize that we can’t trust our fundamental perceptual mechanism. But they don’t.

Explaining cognitive biases to someone (so that they understand them) *should* make them less likely to be caught by those biases. But it rarely does.

Obviously, there are great evolutionary reasons for us to be oblivious to our errors, biases, and glitches… but the repercussions of our denial haven’t penetrated society in a way that reliably affects our daily life for the better (can you say “eyewitness testimony” or “trusting your experience” or “Las Vegas”?).

By: Simone

Simone — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:39 +0000

Eric,

I think you did not get the point. It really doesn’t matter if you are wearing glasses or not. It just to show how the visual system can be tricked very easily even if it the sensiive system we use the most. We use it all the time and nevertheless we still make mistake. What about the other area of the brain that are even less developed (both in terms of how frequently we use them and in evolutionary terms)?

you should not feel offended.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:43:21 +0000

This is a really bad way to argue that people make bad economic decisions. The way I see it, vision and economic decision making are completely independent events. That is, the probability that I make an error when processing a visual image has no bearing on the probability that I will make an error when calculating how much money I should pay for insurance. If they were not independent, the implications would be that people with worse vision are less rational. As a wearer of glasses, I am offended.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:23:21 +0000

I’ve read the book, and I think I know why the students who didn’t get the tickets for the Duke games didn’t ‘value’ the tickets as highly as those who owned them. They already ‘paid’ a price equivalent to those that had them. You’re asking them to pay cash on top of the time and effort they’ve already paid. The ‘owners’ don’t appear to mention the price they’ve already paid (the sitting in tents, etc.), but that has got to be a factor in the price they want in return for those tickets. In this case, your buyers and sellers have already paid a heavy price, but some came out on top and some didn’t. The difference in ‘value’ between the two groups is also the difference in their past experience in getting or not getting those tickets, which is equivalent. Try to sell those tickets to someone who didn’t, or couldn’t, go through the tent ritual and see what price you might get. I suspect that those buyers would pay a higher price.