Comments on: 50% of College Students Think We See Like Superman, Despite Perception Course

By: sjbeckusa

sjbeckusa — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:12:00 +0000

The eyes of many animals, including cats and some spiders, have a reflective surface called the tapetum behind the retina. Thus, light passes through the retina in both directions, enhancing visual acuity in dim light.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:19:00 +0000

I would like to know how many people answered '2' to that question, as it is (basically) also correct; light enters our eyes and hits the retina, which is the part that allows sight, but (some) light also then reflects off the retina and exits the eye. That's incidental to sight, but I feel like 'we see when light bounces off our retina' and 'we see when our retina absorbs light' are both valid descriptions of sight.

By: sonicmute

sonicmute — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:12:00 +0000

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)

By: Hannu

Hannu — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:57:00 +0000

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.

By: Pete H

Pete H — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:43:00 +0000

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.

By: Growing Freedom

Growing Freedom — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:33:00 +0000

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.

By: Jules the Sceptical

Jules the Sceptical — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:39:00 +0000

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.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:55:00 +0000

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.

By: Rattitude

Rattitude — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:16:00 +0000

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.

By: ie

ie — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:00:00 +0000

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.