Visual Clutter Causes High-Magnitude Errors

[Keit]

Hello all, I want to share with you several thoughts on a following research:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040056
Visual Clutter Causes High-Magnitude Errors
Stefano Baldassi1, Nicola Megna1, David C. Burr1,2

1 Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universit

 

[ark]

The conclusions of this experiment were, that if people dealing with simple systems or sets, they make less mistakes but more willing to admit that they are wrong. But when the system become more complex, they naturaly tend to do more mistakes, but paradoxically - less willing to admit their mistakes or more sure about their choices and decisions.

I think that the most important term is "clutter". If you let clutter to act on you, then you are making mistaking. It is not the "complexity". It is the clutter, the noise. It is lies that you allow to enter into your system. Then you will make errors and you will be less willing to change your position. If, on the other hand, you value the truth and you do not listen to the clutter, then, no matter how complex the truth can be, you will be willing to admit errors and to adapt your position to the objective evidence that you encounter.

... Here we show that perceptual clutter leads not only to an increase in judgment errors, but also to an increase in perceived signal strength and decision confidence on erroneous trials....

Clutter means essentially lies, means essentially disinformation. Truth is rarely simple. Usually it is complex (The devil is in the details). Nevertheless if you after the truth, you will be less likely to make mistakes or to hold to opinions that contradict the data. If you are after the truth, you will sort your data, you will analyse the possible distorsion factors, both random and deliberate, inside and outsise of yourself.

In simple circumstances, certainly, a programmed machine will take decisions faster than a conscious human being, yet when circumstances get more complex a nonlinear approach that takes into account all the available data is better than a machine that takes into account only a finite number of possibilities that were encoded by the programmer. Machne based on neural networks and genetic codes can learn and, in a way, can adapt to the new situations, but again, their "decisions" are hard to predict and do not have to be without errors. Machines hardly know what the "truth" is.

We also do not know what the truth is, but there is "something" inside real truth seekers, some "sixth sense" that lets them to discover new truths and uncover new lies.

 

[Keit]

[Ark's comment:] Oh, my goodness! Instead of replying to Keit's post, I edited it! Keit, if you keep a copy, can you post it again? Thanks. Ark.

I understand what you mean. And this "noise" is indeed an information that can or will distract from spotting the truth (the dots)

But noise is not an information. It is a noise. Or it is a disinformation.

, but I was also reffering to something else. Some other aspect of possible misunderstanding or resistance, as a result of natural "crystallization" of opinion or perception. And this resistance, if not analyzed or "dealt with" can lead to the lose of (maybe) significant data. Even if both sides are conscient"truth seekers".

I do not quite agree. Resistance may be the result of lack of data. It may the result of mental blocks. It may be the result of genetically imposed limits. It may the result of a "paradigm". It is well known from the history of science that when time is not "ripe", certain new ideas will never be understood. But with time, with new ways of thinking and perceiving the reality, what yesterday was be considered a "heresy", today is assimilated without any difficulties.

As I said in the previous post, usually such resistance accure as a result of diiferent sum of experiences on both sides. For example, Gurdjieff. He made an enormous impact on esoteric thinking. His teachings help us to become less machine, more aware. But with all his self-awareness and constant thinking, he couldn't groak the idea of hyperdimensional reality (or at least, couldn't express it clearly in his work).

First of all we are 100% sure that the idea of hyperdimensional reality is the right one. It is our working hypothesis, which one day may need to be replaced by another (better) idea. Second, Gurdjieff may not have had the necessary scientific preparation to grasp and to develop this idea. That is why networking is so important, but a colinear networking, because networking with those who are not colinear may (but does not have to) introduce the noisy factor, the clutter, and so nothing of value will ever be created as the result of such networking. Third, and most important, wrong or incomplete theories are useful, are even necessary. Gurdjieff went as far as he could. He has left the ground for others, the same way we, developing his ideas and having our own limitations, are leaving the ground for others to build on our achievements and on our errors. What is important is sincerity, the decision not to deceive others.

In my area, theoretical physics, there are very good, top class physicists, who have very "crystalized" ideas. And yet they are experts, and they add to the total development of science in a significant way. They are experts in their domains and others can learn from their mistakes and their limitations. What is important is expertise and clarity. Then even if you "crystalize" and you make wrong predictions, yet you are not adding clutter or noise. Because you are SINCERE.

I hope I have expressed my ideas clearly and did not add to clutter .... :)

 

[ark]

The post above is my answer to the post of Keit that by mistake I simply overwritten! The essence of the original Keit's post is in the quotations.
Perhaps I was tired (after cutting two trees today!). My sincere apologies.

 

[Keit]

The post above is my answer to the post of Keit that by mistake I simply overwritten! The essence of the original Keit's post is in the quotations.
Perhaps I was tired (after cutting two trees today!). My sincere apologies.

I don't have a copy, but I almost remember what I wrote in the last part, so I'll quote again the main text
that you used in your response and will add the missing part.

***

I understand what you mean. And this "noise" is indeed an information that can or will distract from spotting the truth (the dots), but I was also reffering to something else. Some other aspect of possible misunderstanding or resistance, as a result of natural "crystallization" of opinion or perception. And this resistance, if not analyzed or "dealt with" can lead to the lose of (maybe) significant data. Even if both sides are conscient"truth seekers".
As I said in the previous post, usually such resistance accure as a result of diiferent sum of experiences on both sides. For example, Gurdjieff. He made an enormous impact on esoteric thinking. His teachings help us to become less machine, more aware. But with all his self-awareness and constant thinking, he couldn't grok the idea of hyperdimensional reality (or at least, couldn't express it clearly in his work).

(lost part)We will never know his true reasons, but maybe he indeed had an opportunity to meet a person who could help him understand or broaden his view. But wasn't able to use it properly, because of his inner resistance, as a result of already crystallined opinion (perception of the world), even if he had great self awareness. And that's why today we see and understand that even if his ideas very helpful and insightful, they lack "completion" or "wholeness". Like something missing.

***

I'll reply tommorow, just wanted to add, that by crystallined opinion I do not mean strictly "view of the world" or even perception, but more lack of flexibility to accept other (different/strange) roads of self-development that may occur simultaneously and don't contradict each other, but intersect in curtain points. And through those points, people with very different points of view or paths, can find mutual understanding. And by that - broaden their views or abilities.

 

[Guest]

I think the results of this study are interesting, and to me unexpected. Basically:

Here we show that perceptual clutter leads not only to an increase in judgment errors, but also to an increase in perceived signal strength and decision confidence on erroneous trials.

I agree "clutter" can be taken as disinformation, and in my view confusion or "static". What is interesting is that one would expect a decrease in perceived signal strength and decision confidence with increased "static" in any given situation. This would be an objective result, because signal strength does decrease with increased disinformation.

What I believe Keit and the study are describing here is the compensatory effect of a subjectively fabricated signal strength superimposed on the decreased one. In other words, this seems to be a reflex where disinformation is compensated with virtual organization in an effort to amplify signal clarity. In other words, it's a phenomenon where two wrongs are supposed to make a right.

Objectively, when a situation is confusing, we tend to approach it from a standpoint of subjective conviction to counter the dissonance. So I think Keit is referring to a specific phenomenon regarding decision making and discernment, which is obviously relevant to this forum.

The authors of the paper not only describe the phenomenon, but provide an explanation:

The results are well explained by assuming that the observers' internal representation of stimulus orientation arises from a nonlinear combination of the outputs of independent noise-perturbed front-end detectors.

This phrase was a bit confusing for me, (unfortunately there is something wrong with the link so I couldn't access the paper itself). It seems to be saying that a virtual image of the situation is formed in the observer's mind from a non-linear combination of elements of objective perception. This does not explain the phenomenon in terms of motivation, but does indicate that the virtual image is restructured perception, for the purposes of presenting a desired outcome. Perhaps we can call this a form of "wishful thinking" masked as conviction, geared to decrease "clutter dissonance".

What I also got from the paper is that this phenomenon is basic to human nature, which is geared to decrease dissonance at all costs, even if it has to fabricate "crystallized" objectivity to do so. As such, it is worth taking note of it, and staying vigilant so we do not fall prey to it.

 

[vinny]

I'm trying to clarify the idea for myself:

The concept is that because human nature is 'geared to decrease dissonance at all costs', if one is faced with a dissonant/noisy signal, then there can be a tendancy to conjour up in the imagination a fictional 'meaning' to attribute to the signal, and then become highly attached to this erroneous meaning (seeing an imaginary 'high signal strength'), in order to shield from dissonance.

So, if someone tells you a big string of confusing non-sensical lies, then you might fall for it, create some 'fundamental and absolute meaning' in your head, and turn into a fanatical 'believer', behaving in a way that is patently absurd to an external observer, being completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and generally become far more entrenched in it than if the ideas were more logically consistent in the first place!

Well, that's an incredible suggestion. But actually, why not? It seems to be just what DOES happen, regarding cult members, for example, and their stubborn struggle to defend and maintain their flawed belief structure. and of course I'm including all the biggest cults in there too, eg monotheistic fundamentalists etc etc. Once you are 'hooked' it is almost impossible to become 'unhooked', due to the huge dissonance which would be experienced in trying to do so. We're back to the concept of 'buffers'.

 

[Keit]

So, if someone tells you a big string of confusing non-sensical lies, then you might fall for it, create some 'fundamental and absolute meaning' in your head, and turn into a fanatical 'believer', behaving in a way that is patently absurd to an external observer, being completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and generally become far more entrenched in it than if the ideas were more logically consistent in the first place!

I agree, but the fact is, that you don't have to face string/signal of high ratio of noise/lies in order to "fall for it".
In my opinion and as EQ said, this is our natural tendency: to create some order out of chaos and to decrease dissonance. Therefore, even the most aware and vigilant "truth seeker" have a possibility to fall into more "advanced" version of wishful thinking and miss an opportunity to broaden his perspective and perception of the reality. And this is very natural and maybe unavoidable, because you can walk only one path and not several simultenously, and in order to achieve something, to develop will and intention - one should be focused on this path. BUT - the reason I brought up this issue, because I think that even if we can walk only one path, we can still broaden our view by meeting/intersecting with other people paths, perceptions and understandings.
Some of those views can be very different but still valid for our own development.
And in order to "enjoy" the fruits and "qualia" of others, we should be aware of possible and natural inner resistance. We can see the obvious resistance in science and philosophy, but as Ark said...

I do not quite agree. Resistance may be the result of lack of data. It may the result of mental blocks. It may be the result of genetically imposed limits. It may the result of a "paradigm". It is well known from the history of science that when time is not "ripe", certain new ideas will never be understood. But with time, with new ways of thinking and perceiving the reality, what yesterday was be considered a "heresy", today is assimilated without any difficulties.

...We can overcome this problem with time, if we are willing and open to the changes.

But I am talking about something more "delicate" or subtle. Those little things that shape our own personal existence. And in most cases, we are not aware enough of possible distortions of our view.
Here, take a look at this article and deduce this experiment from "national scale" to personal development of each person:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0822_050822_chinese_2.html

"If people are literally looking at the world differently, we think it would be natural for them to explain the world in different ways," said Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Over the past decade reasearch by Nisbett and his colleagues has surprised the social sciences with numerous studies showing that Westerners and East Asians think differently.

Westerners tend to be analytical and pay more attention to the key, or focal, objects in a scene-for example, concentrating on the woman in the "Mona Lisa," as opposed to the rocks and sky behind her.

East Asians, by contrast, tend to look at the whole picture and rely on contextual information when making decisions and judgments about what they see, Nisbett said. (See sidebar at lower right.)

The new study was designed to determine if the difference in the thought processes of East Asians and Westerners affects how Westerners and East Asians physically look at the world.

So, if it highly possible that our natural tendency to focus on something and avoid something else, it is advisable to be aware of such tendency and "fill the gaps" by intersecting with other/different views, to accept the fact of possible resistance (natural turbulence as a result of walking on specific path, focusing thoughts and attention on it and then meeting with something different) and learn how to deal with it.

 

[ark]

So, if it highly possible that our natural tendency to focus on something and avoid something else, it is advisable to be aware of such tendency and "fill the gaps" by intersecting with other/different views, to accept the fact of possible resistance (natural turbulence as a result of walking on specific path, focusing thoughts and attention on it and then meeting with something different) and learn how to deal with it.

Yet every rule has exceptions. Sometimes it is necessary to focus onto something and to avoid soemthing else. Sometimes it is advisable NOT to be aware of such tendency and ignore other, different views. This happens when we create something new. A painter or a composer, during the period of creation often shuts off completely to external influences. The same with scientists. Because when we create, we create someting that does not exist yet, therefore other views may distract us and prevent from being creative and original.

Another little point: even if people in the East may think differently than the people in the West, yet mathematics and physics is the same for the Chinese as for French. The way of "getting there" may be different, but the end result is universal.

 

[Keit]

Yet every rule has exceptions.

I agree.

Sometimes it is necessary to focus onto something and to avoid soemthing else. Sometimes it is advisable NOT to be aware of such tendency and ignore other, different views. This happens when we create something new. A painter or a composer, during the period of creation often shuts off completely to external influences. The same with scientists. Because when we create, we create someting that does not exist yet, therefore other views may distract us and prevent from being creative and original.

If I am not mistaken, creativity can't flourish in vacuum/closed environment.

The question is, does "to ignore" and "not be aware of such tendency" is useful only for scientists or anyone in the "creative arts", or it can be useful as universal approach for finding new creativity? If so, such approach describes also YCYOR concept of New age. They also focus on something and ignore the other. They also sure that they create something new and wonderful. So why their thinking is wishful one, and scientific approach get more "respect"? Because of the facts? Because of criticisms and constant search for answers? But if you choose to ignore something, how can you be sure that you got a correct answer?

Another little point: even if people in the East may think differently than the people in the West, yet mathematics and physics is the same for the Chinese as for French. The way of "getting there" may be different, but the end result is universal.

So if don't know math or physics, I'll never get any "end result"? I will never be "set free", I will be always on the road to "get there"?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm trying to clarify the idea for myself:

The concept is that because human nature is 'geared to decrease dissonance at all costs', if one is faced with a dissonant/noisy signal, then there can be a tendancy to conjour up in the imagination a fictional 'meaning' to attribute to the signal, and then become highly attached to this erroneous meaning (seeing an imaginary 'high signal strength'), in order to shield from dissonance.

So, if someone tells you a big string of confusing non-sensical lies, then you might fall for it, create some 'fundamental and absolute meaning' in your head, and turn into a fanatical 'believer', behaving in a way that is patently absurd to an external observer, being completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and generally become far more entrenched in it than if the ideas were more logically consistent in the first place!

This can be referred to as the "insufficient justification effect." When someone (for whatever reason) does something that they didn't really choose to do, they will compensate for that uncertainty by becoming more certain after the fact. Pyschologists will see it helps us from forever second-guessing our decisions, because we can't be fully conscious of all of them. However, if we do something against our morals or conscience, we may end up justifying the behaviour.

 

[ark]

If I am not mistaken, creativity can't flourish in vacuum/closed environment.

The devil is in the details. You are too prone to generalization and skipping the details. It depends on what stage of creativity. There are stages where interaction and being open are needed. There are also stages when concentration, focusing and removing all external clutter interference is needed. You certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.

The question is, does "to ignore" and "not be aware of such tendency" is useful only for scientists or anyone in the "creative arts", or it can be useful as universal approach for finding new creativity?

Here I need to be more specific. When I say "creativity" I do not mean craeting "noise". I mean "creating order". Creating noise is easy. Creating order is difficult. Again, you certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.

If so, such approach describes also YCYOR concept of New age.

New Age YCYOR is creating noise.

They also focus on something and ignore the other.

I never said that focusing on something and ignoring anything else is good. I specifically mentioned painters, musicians, scientists, when they create something new. To be more specific: something new of value for those who are seeking truth and beauty (both concepts are fuzzy, yet important). I am sure you know it.

They also sure that they create something new and wonderful.

What one is sure about does not matter. Someone who is sure of being an artist or a scientist does not have to be an artist or a scientist. The person can be simply a megalomaniac. The proof of the pudding is in eating it. But you certainly know it.

So why their thinking is wishful one, and scientific approach get more "respect"?

Thinking does not matter. The results are all that matter. Whether one is a scientist or a poseudo-scientist depends on the results of their activities. Not always it is easy to decide which is which, but with some expertise this can be done with a reasonable probability.

Because of the facts? Because of criticisms and constant search for answers? But if you choose to ignore something, how can you be sure that you got a correct answer?

Again, it all depends on the stage of the work. Moreover, often it is impossible to know without networking with the experts. Sometimes networking with the experts is of no help. Then one needs to wait 100 or 1000 years before there is a possibility to decide whether something that is created is of some value. But in many cases it is enough just to examine the work for errors and incosistencies, for manerisms, for the motivation and for supporters, to decide which is which with a reasonable probability. But you probably know it.

Another little point: even if people in the East may think differently than the people in the West, yet mathematics and physics is the same for the Chinese as for French. The way of "getting there" may be different, but the end result is universal.

So if don't know math or physics, I'll never get any "end result"?

Not at all. When you ride a bus, and you get to your destination, you have your result. Of course for this you have to concentrate and to focus, to
take the right bus. Other people may try to distract you. You should not let this happen. But, on the other hand, when someone is saying
that the driver is drunk, you better pay attention. The devil is in the details.

I will never be "set free", I will be always on the road to "get there"?

That is entirely your choice. There are more objective truth and less objective truth in every domain. I have chosen physics and mathematics as examples of domains where the end result can be judged independently of the "way of thinking". The same applies to building bridges, creating web sites, making money, helping people, or adding to the universal culture.

 

[Keit]

The devil is in the details. You are too prone to generalization and skipping the details.

I don't think so. My questions to you, are direct result of your general response. In my previous answers I was quite detailed.

It depends on what stage of creativity. There are stages where interaction and being open are needed. There are also stages when concentration, focusing and removing all external clutter interference is needed. You certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.

Yes I know it and agree with you. But the fact is, that from the beginning, my thoughts were about the stage where interaction and being open are needed. I gave possible advise or tips based on my own humble opinion.
It doesn't mean that I am not aware or miss the other stages or other aspects of looking for creativity.

Here I need to be more specific. When I say "creativity" I do not mean craeting "noise". I mean "creating order". Creating noise is easy. Creating order is difficult. Again, you certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.

How do you know that I miss it? This is a major assumption on your part.

I never said that focusing on something and ignoring anything else is good. I specifically mentioned painters, musicians, scientists, when they create something new. To be more specific: something new of value for those who are seeking truth and beauty (both concepts are fuzzy, yet important). I am sure you know it.

You used this frase "I am sure you know it" several times in your answer. Why?
How do you know what I really know or understand?

I have a feeling (my assamption) that this thread become (or was from the beginning) some sort of debate or actually a "clash". This wasn't my intention. I've read an article and posted several thoughts on it. It was a result of my assosiative thinking, and it doesn't mean that someone else can look at the same article and understand something else. In fact, in your response (second post to this thread) you gave your own take on this article.

And I think that from the third one, the "clash" has begun. And I also think that it can be a perfect learning opportunity if we will examine again this post, because it's demonstrate the "resistance" I was talking about (from both sides). Take a second look on those quotes:

, but I was also reffering to something else. Some other aspect of possible misunderstanding or resistance, as a result of natural "crystallization" of opinion or perception. And this resistance, if not analyzed or "dealt with" can lead to the lose of (maybe) significant data. Even if both sides are conscient"truth seekers".

I do not quite agree. Resistance may be the result of lack of data. It may the result of mental blocks. It may be the result of genetically imposed limits. It may the result of a "paradigm". It is well known from the history of science that when time is not "ripe", certain new ideas will never be understood. But with time, with new ways of thinking and perceiving the reality, what yesterday was be considered a "heresy", today is assimilated without any difficulties.

You chose to disagree with me, when in fact, we both were talking about different things, as I understand it from your answer. It has no connection to what I wrote.
You gave me explanation about "factual resistance". When person refuse to understand other opinion because his view is crystallized, and he is too used to live in this perception. This kind of resistance indeed can be result of lack of data or out of fear to lose something familiar and face the change.

And I was reffering to other type of "resistance". In fact - my thoughts didn't carry any "scientific" significance, even if they were based on scientific article. I was talking about an inner turmoil that every person experience, when he is faced with new and very different information. This is another angle or aspect of the same subject. I presented the idea that the same "cognitive dissonance" experienced by those who are still "live the lie" or asleep when they forced to face "the true reality or facts" so to say, the same (but very different) dissonance may be experienced by aware "truth seeker". The very nature or intensity of dissonance is different, but this is still a turmoil. Turmoil that can be noticed if we pay attention. It's like when we are "exposed" to different (in our eyes) view, we face the "noise" again and this creates inner dissonance.
I was trying to show, that even with all our efforts to be aware and true to ourselfs, we still can shove things under the rug, because it easier to return to familiar mode then try to overcome the dissonance by modifying our perception. And there are million justified and understandble reasons, you gave several of them in your responses.
But in my opinion - this is another thing worth while of exploring. And this was the initial intention of my post.
To bring this issue into others attention .

Next quotes:

As I said in the previous post, usually such resistance accure as a result of diiferent sum of experiences on both sides. For example, Gurdjieff. He made an enormous impact on esoteric thinking. His teachings help us to become less machine, more aware. But with all his self-awareness and constant thinking, he couldn't groak the idea of hyperdimensional reality (or at least, couldn't express it clearly in his work).

First of all we are 100% sure that the idea of hyperdimensional reality is the right one. It is our working hypothesis, which one day may need to be replaced by another (better) idea. Second, Gurdjieff may not have had the necessary scientific preparation to grasp and to develop this idea. That is why networking is so important, but a colinear networking, because networking with those who are not colinear may (but does not have to) introduce the noisy factor, the clutter, and so nothing of value will ever be created as the result of such networking. Third, and most important, wrong or incomplete theories are useful, are even necessary. Gurdjieff went as far as he could. He has left the ground for others, the same way we, developing his ideas and having our own limitations, are leaving the ground for others to build on our achievements and on our errors. What is important is sincerity, the decision not to deceive others.

And here again, we have two quotes that carry possibly valid and important information or understandings, but have no connection between them what so ever :)
I deliberately took Gurdjieff as an example, because I wanted to show that even such developed and self-aware person can be victim of something he taught others to avoid.
All your remarks about him are very valid, but in my opinion - can't be considered as a reply to what I wrote.

I am not sure why is that. I tend to realise that maybe I wasn't clear enough. Maybe I used words or concepts that carry specific meaning in your or other readers eyes, and when their meaning is clear to me - you see it in another light. And in return, I interpretate your words as I see fit.
And maybe you wasn't actually responding me, but simply giving out your opinion, without direct connection to the content. It just look like one of those examples, when two people debate on something, sure that they have different opinions, when in fact they are talking about different aspects of the same subject.
And I think that what happened here, was a result of the "resistance" I was talking about. Well, only one aspect of it ;)
And why I think that there is some sort of resistence? Because there is no "flow" of conversation. There are no conclusions that can be drown from posts of both responders, except for highly general ones that won't lead us to any new realisation or understanding. And in my opinion this is a result of very strong and apparent conceptional resistance or lack of flexibility on both sides.