Perception is learned. Depending upon the values taught in youth through traditional teaching of localization and experiences, each person will develop a base for judgment of good and bad. Regional perception will fluctuate due to regionally accepted behavior in every case study. Isolation of different beliefs instilled into the psyche regionally will bear weight on the determination of ethical and unethical judgments of other peoples from different regions. Only through making education of other cultures readily available in all areas can regional perception be changed to accepting or rejecting preordained decisions based on regional teachings. Deep-rooted beliefs based upon regional misconceptions may be reversed through revealing truths in mass scale. Correlating regional beliefs and exposing the differences created from misconception, deception, and manipulation to control the masses through the conceived perception of drastic differences. What one may consider moral and ethical, unthreatening, another may consider threatening and unethical all from taught thought processing. The convoluted status of multi demonizing of all who are different should be addressed. Using facts without personal perception to reeducate the world population could possible bring the species up one more level on the evolutionary ladder. These are just my thought. I am not an expert on anything. I just feel that beliefs have killed more humans than reasoning ever did kill. Facts and numbers are reliable. They speak the truth the same way every time. Using a system of checks and measures along with the scientific facts to actually educate instead of indoctrinating could possible make a better human race.
“. . . otherwise, people would have been able to be consistent to earn a cash prize.”
Suppose they didn’t appreciate this Pavlovian treatment. Maybe they were inconsistent in order to not validate – for their own reasons of self-esteem – being treated as Pavlov’s dog.
This appears to be exactly what we are seeing right now with the shifting definition of sexual harassment or assault. As more people report (or pile on), their descriptions of what happened appear less and less worth reporting. However, a alternative explanation might be that instead of the reports being less worthy, the public becomes more inured and decides that moderate levels of harassment are actually no big deal.
“… think about writing down a list…” What good would that do? How about “Write a list…” Surely the whole point is to get it out of ones’ [biased] head!
Greg Braden Quantum Physics The GOD Gene
I think I understand this theory. There are people who think crime is much worse “today” than in the past because of very heavily covered school shootings and mass shootings. The incidence of gun murders, other murders and violent crime is down in the last 20-30 years. In the “good old days” of the 30’s and 40’s when my mother was a young adult, the mob dominated our Florida city. At age 30, she witnessed a mobster being shot by an enemy a few cars ahead of hers, stopped at a traffic light.
This is a wonderful discussion from a policy standpoint. What are the economic and policy effects of the incorrect perception of risk? How much money is wasted trying to reduce threat levels to zero? As for the hope that AI can save us, if we have learned nothing else in 2018, we do know that we build our unconscious biases into our algorithms and machines.
It would be interesting to extend this to potential or real romantic partners. If the media increasingly propagates images and ideals of the ‘perfect partner’, it would make most normal people appear unattractive by comparison. But I guess this is already captured by social comparison theory.
It would also be interesting to extend this to self-assessment of personal qualities. A drug dealer could feel like a confident, dominant, tough, cool girl, just because of the people she hangs around, whereas in many other social circles she would just look like a weak loser. What about intelligence–are you surrounded by super intelligent people, or average people? Does that make you feel more or less intelligent, or confident about your intelligence? I guess the Dunning-Kruger effect–less intelligent people tend to overestimate their intelligence, and more intelligent people tend to overestimate others’ intelligence–could tie in to the intelligence bit.
The world isn’t static in case anyone else hasn’t noticed. Let’s see, over the 4th of July holiday, on 3 occasions they spotted a pedophile on the beach masturbating and that was reported by children. So that’s a real threat that changes moment to moment, wherever that one may be. If you aren’t paying attention this world has quite a few threats and characters in it. We have a POTUS that claims to be starting a tariff war to drive prices up to consumers. So take your pick, there are liars and criminals amongst us that have to rationalize inflation for their greed. They aren’t a fabricated threat, they are real from moment to moment. I mean take the Healthcare insurance people, they’re a financial threat with premium increases. We can keep on going with everyone on this planet that adversely effects your bottom line and any raise to offset that is a deficit spending effect for a wealth transfer. Sad the rest of us are in a reactionary mode. We can’t get rid of these people either. They’ve seized power.
I imagine this happens in marriage, too!?! No wonder we think, “he/she is never satisfied.”
This article is actually quite fascinating, even enlightening; because it is quite an obvious thing to point out being true, and yet, the sheer reading of it made it the most obvious for me.
Personally, I can note that if I have decided to hear out what is in the political media outlets, I do find myself quicker to prejudge folks that I might not all other times, and it is quite apparent this has happened over the last year or so. Likewise, it became easier to prejudge things like accidents being an at fault, rather than basic human error, just so to blame someone for them… Which clearly is not logical at all.
So I do support these kinds of “comparative” studies. Ones that don’t have an actual biased goal or outcome, but merely flip the sides consistently to see if folks have been able to “stay on their toes”. We actually do need to pay attention to these things in ourselves, there is absolutely no question about that front, and recognize that our brains are liable to change from outside sources, since it is certainly true that changing what we believe without personal will, can and will become a very dangerous thing… More than the crime or duress in the world we are so anxious to change or, for lack of better terms, “Make the world as best possible”… Because even that goal is, technically, a biased one depending on the angle.
Real kudos to this research, thank you.
As a teacher, I feel like the phenomenon described is more similar to how students guess on a multiple choice test, where some students will choose an option because it hasn’t occured frequently enough. Choices are based on an imagined probability, rather than a change in judgement. You could probably test this by breaking the rarity and making it more abundant for a short while before continuing the rarity again. I’d also be curious if rarity was switched after a while, so the other option becomes more rare after a while and the rare case becomes more abundant.
Also, I noticed that the tests are mostly looking for negatives (looking for crimes, threatening faces, unethical studies). I wonder if the same thing would happen if they were asked to find positives, like friendly faces, ethical studies.
So this at least partly explains why low crime areas are the most paranoia about crime, ascribing proximate threats to remotely located immigrants and minorities. And Trump stokes this fear with baseless claims about the criminality of immigrants.
People are scared of what is dramatic more then what is actually common. People far plane crashes more than car crashes, but they spend only a few hours a year in planes.
I think this article points to something that is the opposite of desensitization. If you see a lot of threatening faces, then ones that are threatening, but not as threatening, might look mild.
Lightweights aren’t just light people, sometimes they just lack experience. People soften up, people get out of shape, people become sensitive to things they wouldn’t normally be.
Explains why I keep getting excited about “limited time” offers/sales on products I already own.
In some cases this type of thinking is institutionalized. In law enforcement we are trained, and trained again, to see every situation as a potential threat, no matter how innocent. This mindset has no doubt saved lives in law enforcement, but it has also no doubt taken innocent lives on the street when people are shot reaching for a wallet, or cell phone, etc.
Exactly that is happening in many areas from shark attacks to airline crashes, or medical “alerts” when the threat is minimal. This is making everyone over anxious about nothing, and workers more paranoid and on edge waiting for a once in ten lifetimes event! Time to change a few things that make work increasingly unproductive and life more unpleasant and less enjoyable. Treykng to eliminate all risk is impossible, hugely uneconomic, and full of unintended consequences as the “analysis” is always flawed, incomplete, based on wrong or out of date data and made by the wrong people who ignore warnings from those on the ground. Tick box checklists etc increasingly creates without thinking doesn’t make you safer, nor do silly new rules and laws restricting reasonable human behaviour just because of one “imcident”. The worst ones are “black swan” events like 9/11, ulentirelt unpredictable and unpreventable, and dnithkngg we do will stop the next one becaus we have absolutely no idea chance at it will be! Enjoying and don’t stress about very unlikely events, or make others miserable by over regulation and mindless bureaucracy. Maybe AI can save us but probably not as it uses similar data ?
Comments are closed.