50% of College Students Think We See Like Superman, Despite Perception Course
Mind-myth 6: Here's a quick question for you about human vision. Compare these four very short descriptions of how we see, and decide which you think is true:
- Rays of energy coming into our eyes allow us to see.
- Rays first coming into the eyes then going back out again allow us to see.
- Rays first going out of the eyes then coming back in allow us to see.
- Rays simultaneously going out and coming back into the eyes allow us to see.
For some of you this question will be elementary: it's one of the most basic scientific findings about the way our eyes work and is covered in introductory perception classes. Others may not be sure of the answer, but don't worry you're not alone, not by a long shot.
Of course there's a big clue in the title of this post. Answers 2, 3 & 4 all contain the idea that our vision is akin to Superman's X-ray vision or the character 'Cyclops' from X-Men, as both can send out beams of energy from their eyes. In fact us mere mortals do nothing of the sort. Quite the reverse.
Our eyes pick up rays coming from the sun, or some other light source, that have been reflected off objects in our environment into our eyes. What allows us to see is one-way traffic: into the eyes only. We don't send any rays outwards (although technically some light is reflected from our eyes, but this isn't produced by our eyes or important in vision).
The correct answer is 1.
The roots of the misconception
...people's looks can literally meet in mid-airThe roots of the idea that we see by firing rays out of our eyes goes back way past Superman and X-Men. Famous Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget was perhaps the first to notice that children have strange misconceptions about vision, including the idea that we see by sending out rays; and that, as a result, people's looks can literally meet in mid-air (Piaget, 1974).
It's not just children, though; it seems the idea has been popular with great minds for some time. Greek philosopher Empedocles is often credited with it, and the concept has also been endorsed by other Greek favourites like Plato, Euclid and Ptolemy.
How many people actually hold this misconception?
Unlike many other misconceptions and myths in psychology, this one has been extensively tested in a series of experiments. As a result we have a pretty good idea how many people believe it and how easy it might be to dispel this myth.
To find out, Professor Gerald Winer and colleagues asked participants how vision worked in a number of different ways (Winer et al., 2002). It was presented verbally, with static images as well as using animation. Presenting the information in different ways was designed to try and counter any biases produced by the question's format.
The results were startling.The results were startling. Between 41% and 67% of participants, depending on the exact way the question was asked, thought that the eye sent out some kind of ray or beam in order for us to see.
That's not the startling bit.
The startling bit is that the participants in the experiment were college students who, just a few weeks before, had taken an introductory psychology class on perception. As part of this class students had been explicitly told on a number of occasions how people see. Yet, despite this, around half the students clearly hadn't internalised the knowledge.
If you think that it's just college students who entertain this misconception about vision, then think again. Winer and colleagues have tested people of different ages and got comparable results (although older people are more likely to get it right). They've even tried giving people hints about the correct answer by asking them to imagine they were looking at a light bulb. Despite this big clue, one third of participants still thought that rays came out of their eyes to bounce off the light bulb.
Still blind to the truth
Students were reading the information and then, apparently, completely ignoring it.For one thing it shows the difficulty in overturning people's ingrained beliefs about science. Virginia Gregg and colleagues tested the effect of education even more explicitly by asking students to read passages from textbooks directly before taking the test about how we see (Gregg et al., 2001).
Still no dice: it made virtually no difference. Students were reading the information and then, apparently, completely ignoring it.
Actually we shouldn't be surprised by this. A fair amount of research has already been carried out into tackling misconceptions in science. It turns out that people are remarkably resistant to changing their beliefs. Immediately after being told the correct concept clearly enough they may get it right, but only for a short time. Soon after it will often spring right back to their original, incorrect belief.
This doesn't bode at all well for overturning this misconception about vision, or any of the others I'm covering in this series.
» Find out if any other mind-myths catch you out.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
[Image credit: gnackgnackgnack]
References
Gregg, V. R., Winer, G. A., Cottrell, J. E., Hedman, K. E., & Fournier, J. S. (2001). The persistence of a misconception about vision after educational interventions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 622-626.
Piaget, J. (1974). Understanding causality. New York: Norton.
Winer, G. A., Cottrell, J. E., Gregg, V., Fournier, J. S., & Bica, L. A. (2002). Fundamentally misunderstanding visual perception: adults belief in visual emissions, American Psychologist, 57(6-7), 417-24.
Labels: Mind-Myths
17 comments
Part of the problem may be in the way the choices are worded. I find the references to "rays of energy" very confusing and sci-fi-ish and the description of the process rather labored and hard to visualize. I have a basic conception of how seeing works that is relatively accurate and none of the choices really strikes me as accurate or true to my actual experience or intuition about seeing.
Hi Greg, this paragraph from the post addresses your point: "It was presented verbally, with static images as well as using animation. Presenting the information in different ways was designed to try and counter any biases produced by the question's format."
Thanks! It's true, I only skimmed the whole post. I'll go deeper when I have time. Fascinating stuff!
Interesting how what appears to be common sense is absolutely wrong. Speaking of Superman and the X-Men, here's a hypothetical question: If an Invisible Man actually existed, would he be blind or able to see? I think he would be blind. Since his eyes would be transparent, light would pass straight through the rods and cones of his retina, with no resulting stimulation of the optic nerve. With no nerve impulses going to the brain's visual cortex, he would be sightless. What do you think?
You mention Piaget in the article. Is there a link to cognitive thinking style and peoples ability to learn how to think and learn scientifically? Is it that those who think that we see superman style are magical thinkers?
And how does this article relate to writing good propaganda and advertising and compelling arguments? How can we sway the intractable magical thinkers?
I think it is worth noting here that the human body does in fact emit light.
You know, like 'Cyclops' from X-Men. :D
the other 50% think
you see it in armchair,
despite your psych
department buildings.
OK, but I can still fly faster than a speeding bullet. Watch!... [crash] Mom!
One of my professors, Dr. Tiemann, gave a good presentation this in 2004 at RMPA Conference.
He showed a diagram that made it "possible" beams were coming out of the eyes for sight... However it depended on the joke that the person's brain had to be small enough for the light entering the eye to miss, come back out, and then bounce back again to be normally perceived.
That poster was presented to poke fun at this exact topic and how many people cling to super beam vision.
although I answered "1", I am not absolutely sure science is right when saying eyes only receive information from the outer world.
eye is an optic device. and optic device usually work both ways, like telescope or photolens.
I guess everyone can remember at least a few cases when their gaze made someone turn , or when they "felt" someone looking at them. maybe our technics is not yet advanced enough to register and explain such things.
There has been research on that too, suggesting the gaze of bystanders generally (even unconsciously) alerts you to the observer--not their gaze 'hitting' your back.
This "learning problem" is easy enough to explain. People's brains become hard-wired during adolescence and are pretty much set by age 18.
What we learn during that time (think cartoons, etc...) is very difficult to unlearn. The average adult is largely reactive and instinctual, thinking only when they don't have information about something.
Probably the biggest determining factor in re-learning is an individuals interest in the truth. Most people just couldn't care less about little scientific facts and don't bother committing them to memory.
I am reluctant to commit without reading the original research but couldn't resist myself and besides I don't have access to it.
For me a central problem here is
be how to identify what the intuitive view about vision is, and capturing this view will rely on an effective use of language and/or diagrams and questions.
I think that the intuitive view that most people subscribe to is that we are in direct contact with the world. Direct in this sense means that we do not perceive the world via some internal image of the world in our heads.
However, this view is difficult to model. The most appropriate diagrammatic representation of it
would be to draw arrows from the eye going out to the world. To capture it metaphorically would be to say that we see "as if" we were reaching out from our eyes.
So People may identify with the false description because no other is available that captures what they think {a design fault}. My alternative hypothesis would be to change the wording of the description to "as if light were coming out" or "directly" etc.
i.e.one that is more realistic.
Yes, this idea goes back to the Greeks, and is present in Sartre, and modern Philosophy under the name of "Direct Realism" in Perception and with a slight variant in the use of terms associated with Gibson in Psychology. However the trick is not to conflate a metaphorical description with a literal one.
Further the above view is perfectly compatible with the truth of 1: A necessary condition of seeing is light hitting the retina. So the questionnaire should allow for this too rather than assume that they are opposed. As it stands I suspect {I say this tentatively} the questions lull people into a false view rather than attempting to capture what their ordinary intuitions are.
I also suspect some Psychologists including the authors of the study take 1 to entail that the intuitive view about perception is false. And support their feelings about the intuitive view by falsely associating it with discredited
images/descriptions of it i.e. associating it with child like or scientifically false views.
So for me this experiment explains why some Psychologists tend to hold rather dismissive views about certain intuitive theories of perception. No doubt that is not what the authors had in mind.
Maybe the other 50% are hiding bats in their family tree?
It is quite astounding that so many people would get this wrong. Its one thing to not understand how light 'creates' color in what we see, but to get the whole mechanism backwards is really quite amazing.
Humanity lost some points here.
I HAD NO IDEA that so many people were so dumb. I never even entertained the notion and somehow always knew that eyes collect light. I would like to see the survey done in other cultures, sans the myth enhancing cartoons.
I've done some interviewing as research assistant and have heard first hand how much unintelligent babble people feel obligated to produce. Unless you have some reason to know about light and optics you are bound to describe seeing completely wrong, not because you are moron but because you have never properly thought about it and can't intelligently describe it on the spot.
I bet you could ask painter who is completely ignorant about eyes and have him describe seeing very accurately. He wouldn't know what happens to the light after the iris, but he would probably start his description from light hitting the surface of an object.
one way of addressing jules the sceptical's valid comment is to look at data from debriefing interviews after the experiment. after having been told the correct answer, their feedback should give us a hint at whether they in fact agree with the "scientific" account or whether it surprises them to know that they were wrong (i.e. that they meant their answer to be literal and not just metaphorical)