Take This Perception Test to See How Visually Intelligent You Are | Amy Herman | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Take This Perception Test to See How Visually Intelligent You Are
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it’s not what is there, it’s what isn’t. Let’s rewind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY HERMAN:
Amy E. Herman, JD, MA, designed, developed and conducts all sessions of The Art of Perception. While working as Head of Education at The Frick Collection, she instituted the program for medical students to improve their observation skills. After expanding the medical program to seven medical schools in New York, Ms. Herman adapted the program for law enforcement professionals across a wide range of agencies including the New York City Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice and the Secret Service. Ms. Herman holds a BA in International Affairs from Lafayette College, a JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University, and an MA in Art History from Hunter College.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Amy Herman: Visual intelligence is the concept that we see more than we can process and it's the idea of thinking about what we see, taking in the information and what do we really need to live our lives more purposefully and do our jobs more effectively. What I ask the people at The Art of Perception to do one of them is looking down at a piece of paper and the other is looking at the painting and they have one minute to describe what it is that they see to their partner and the partner has to sketch what are they hear. And it's not about the artwork, it's not about how well you draw it's how well can you describe a new set of unfamiliar data, how well do you listen and how well do you take that articulation and transfer it to your own language.
How many of you said there was a train coming out of a fireplace? And everyone raises his or her hands. And how many of you referenced smoke or steam in your discussion? Lots of hands go up. And then I ask the question who articulated that there are no tracks under the train? And a few astute people actually raised their hand and said I said there were no tracks under the train. And then I ask who noticed and then articulated that there was no fire in the fireplace? And hands go up. Not too many. Then we talk about other aspects in the painting. How many people mentioned the wood grain on the floor? Most people noticed the wood grain on the floor. How many people mentioned wainscoting, that kind of paneling on the walls? And I always have some decorative arts aficionados oh yes I know about wainscoting. And then I say how many of you mentioned a mantle on the fireplace? Lots of hands go up. Who mentioned candlesticks? Lots of hands go up. And then I ask how many of you said there were no candles in the candlesticks? And people say oh no never got there. And then I ask what really observant nerd said it's 12:42 or 8:05 on the clock? Who got to mention the time?
And the reason I have that line of questioning is because this painting illustrates a very important concept that I transfer from emergency medicine to a much broader application. And the idea is called the pertinent negative. It's saying what isn't there in addition to what is there to actually give a more accurate picture of what you're looking at. So when you say I see a train coming out of the fireplace, and by the way there are no tracks under the train and there is no fire in the fireplace, why would you attempt to say what's not there? Because in my third-grade mind if you told me to draw a fireplace I would draw two sticks and a fire and smoke in the fireplace unless you told me not to. And if you told me to draw a pair of candlesticks I'll draw candles with flames unless you tell me not to. So the pertinent negative is this wonderful concept that gives us a broader way of looking at something. Instead of looking at something like this you look at it like this.
And here's a example of how you apply that in the real world. The pertinent negative in a medical situation is when someone comes into the emergency room and they have all the symptoms, it appears to the physician they have all the symptoms of pneumonia. Pneumonia has three symptoms. Symptom one is present, symptom two is present, but if symptom three is absent it's the pertinent negative. You have to say septum three is not there therefore it's not pneumonia. So in the real world, outside of medicine, how can we use this? If we have an expectation of someone's behavior, you expect them to behave a certain way and then they don't you need to say it didn...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Sorry but this isn't intelligence. This is just covering for other people's presumptions.
Why does it have to measure up to your limited measure of what intelligence is? You have several likes, so why does it have to measure up to what any of your considerations of intelligence are? Are all of you measuring the relevancy of things to the gold standard of the human experience, circa 2016? My children will certainly know more than what I do at my age because I've already planted the seeds early of Einstein, Feynman, Maxwell, Ghandi, Mandela, Khan, Tsu, Lee, etc... just to name a few. It's folly to think that any of us have all the answers, we all depend on one another to fit in pieces of the puzzle that is our perceived reality. It takes an infrastructure and a heiarchy of intelligence, derived from all humans to make our species succeed in ways that would take over a thousand years, even for orangutans.
John T What a bunch of pseudo intellectual dribble.
Of course anything that a person wants me to accept has to live up to my standards. Also, what is a hierarchy of knowledge? Depending on what you mean by a hierarchy, a hierarchy of knowledge sounds like a convenient way of dismissing having to justify any idea.
I would say it is a ridiculous concept to note the items that are missing from the painting since that list is infinite.
Candlesticks do not have to contain candles therefore mentioning their absence is superfluous. Her admission that she would draw candles in the candlestick unless told not to exposes her acceptance of unfounded assumptions over the evidence presented.
The presence of the steam locomotive does not automatically suggest tracks.
Now it is important to point out the things that should be in the painting or those things that violate the rules of science. Here are some of the things I noticed.
The missing reflection of the candlestick on the right, which by the reflection geometries of the clock and left candlestick should appear just to the right of the clock.
The shadow detail on the left side of the fireplace surround is inconsistent with the necessary position of the light source that created the shadow of the train and the right side of the mantle. The shadows that would be cast by the candlesticks are missing.
Then there is the point that the back of the fireplace is on the same plane as the wall meaning that this is just a decorative mantle. This makes the point of "no fire in the fireplace" moot and also means that the smoke from the train has no reason to be pulled into the fireplace nor would it have anywhere to go if it did.
right but the key lesson is still there. In the case of the painting the pertinent negative is sort of irrelevant, but as mentioned in the video, you're going to have a very different search for a missing person if their keys wallet and phone are present on the scene, versus when they are not.
The examples of the pertinent negative in the painting aren't incredibly practical, no, but the pertinent negative can be very important in many things in life.
TL;DR, you're missing the point of the video.
I actually think the shadows are consistent with a light source in the extreme upper right (left from the image perspective)...say, somewhere above the "g" in "big think". Other than that, great catch on the candlestick reflection. Yes, it should be to the right (left from the blah, blah, blah) of the clock. Our perspective, being below the line of sight of the mantle, would not show the reflected shadows of the clock or the candlesticks as they would be almost directly below them and the angle of reflection in the mirror is too steep to show the mantle top.
Hen Barrison
I understand the point of the video perfectly well. Like so many of the "Big Think" videos it is a platform for an author to push their books.
As for the 'pertinent negative' concept, it would be better labeled "quit making unfounded assumptions". Let's take the pneumonia example, even if a patient says they have 3 out of 3 symptoms the doctor should still verify that it is pneumonia before starting treatment.
Now let's look at the missing person example. The presence or absence of the common personal effects can shift the focus but does little to narrow the scope as both conditions suggest numerous possible causes, ranging from harmless to sinister.
chrisose "Also, inspector, invisible elephants are conspicuously absent from this crime scene Mr. Holmes!", "Sigh, thanks Mr. Watson." *sighs, under his breath* "Why do I bring this guy?" *literal facepalm*
chrisose Not making unfounded assumptions is easier said than done. being aware and sharing the pertinent negative is one way to get around that difficulty.
though you're right about the missing person example. It's not very strong.
I think it's more important to notice that the candlestick on the right doesn't have reflection on the mirror
Yeah I commented the same thing :-) It was very hard not to look at it.
from that angle ( perception) , the reflection would be on the other side of the clock.
Renee Collazo No not all of it.
john mcintosh Thanks for illuminating me, but I've got the point of the video perfectly. I was just pointing out that - to me at least - the lack of reflection on that candlestick was more obvious than her other examples
By following the thoughtpattern of the painter. I'd say that the reflection hides behind the clock, and since it would be such a tiny part of it showing, he simply didn't bothered to draw it. It would be more confusing to think about why the clock has a little golden edge on just one side of it.
When I paint photorealistic, I usually cut out a lot of the real stuff from reference pictures. Specially when it comes to background. Because it might be what was actually there. But when we add it as it was, it just adds to the confusion.
I think it was nice of you to demonstrate the point about the video. I think you understood it pretty well by pointing out what you couldn't see. That was literally a huge part of the message.
Magritte’s intent with this piece is a study of light and shadow from a definitive light source. The artist chose to omit flame in the fireplace and flame on the candles because those would emit light and alter the study. Their omission is intentional and designed to be conspicuous.
Wow very interesting... I didn't see none of that stuff and just was studying the light and shadow on the clock and train.
Wait, so the entire time I was studying the shadows meant I was studying it how it was meant to be studied?
+cortster12 no, they wanted you to see the negatives past the obvious like the fireplace but no fire, and the candlestick but no candle etc.
I thought it was obvious there was no fire :
Internal Dialogue People do notice there is no fire, but their brain doesn't consider it important until it is pointed out.
am I the only one that said : there are no aliens in the picture? There is also no:
- hearth on the fireplace
- logs in the fireplace
- fire pokers beside the fireplace
- doors on the fireplace
- stone on the fireplace
- tile
- brick
- curtain etc...
Saying a "train" with "smoke" is coming out of the fireplace is far less descriptive than saying something like "a train engine is sticking out of a white floor level MDF fireplace suspended 7/8 up the rough opening (3'-0" x 3'-0 1/4"). The fireplace is 5 foot wide, 18 inches deep, and 56 inches tall. ", etc... until youve described the scene exactly.
Instead of providing a laundry list of things that aren't there, you'd be better off listing exactly what's in the picture accurately and concisely to avoid confusion. Saying what isn't there would be a waste of everyones time.
2:15
"There were no candles in the candlesticks"
What the fuck? I call them candlestick holders. I thought "candlestick" referred to the candle itself.
Where do you think people stick their candle sticks?
A candlestick holder would be a place to stick your candlestick that you stick your candles in.
I don't get why that's confusing _at all._
Yeah, whole video is pseudoscience. How many of you noted that there wasn't a dead clown in the room? Well you're all fucking dumb if you missed that one, it was obviously not there!
Stop acting like a scared kitten. Just because you feel she made you feel stupid because you didn't note those things should not cause you to react like a whiny baby crying pseudoscience because you didn't grasp the point of the video. Honestly, she never claims this is science. It is about communication and perception and interpreting what people tell you/say to you. It is about trying to create an accurate picture of the idea you are trying to pass on to another rather than passing on an inaccurate or partial picture of what you need to get across.
Nobody felt stupid. It was common sense bollocks, and a waste of time. There's an infinite amount of things that aren't there. It's funny, you defended that this was science in another comment, yet admit it's not here. You can't create an "accurate picture" when you are having to infinitely tell the other person what things aren't there, after assuming like an idiot that they'd draw an elephant in that car.
Just a bit of Junkie ---- I am fricking laughing so hard at your comment that I have tears in my eyes. OMG!!!!!! This one ----- "Yeah, whole video is pseudoscience. How many of you noted that there wasn't a dead clown in the room? Well you're all fucking dumb if you missed that one, it was obviously not there!"
One of the things I think about in describing it is that I assume "If I don't mention it, it's not there", so if I just said "a train coming out of a fireplace", I never said there were tracks, or a fire, so do not assume that they are there. I would not draw a fire in a fireplace if not given the instruction (unless it's like, Pictionary or something and I need people to give a quick guess).
I do not think in terms that would relate this well to something like diagnosis where you are actively _looking_ for the possibility of a negative.
By thinking this way you are assuming the person you are describing the painting to thinks exactly the way you do. That's a recipe for disaster in terms of communication. No two people think alike.
jchinckley
Well it would depend on if the person would be familiar with trains in the first place.
I like to think that if the description was of something important I would be more specific
@@mastermarkus5307 well then - draw me a car. when youre done, click read more for more instructions
now wipe off the tires, i never said there were tires
@@aasyjepale5210
Not the same thing. That's more like if I drew a car without a road. A train still has wheels. Yes, trains are much more dependent on rails in order to move but I don't think my thoughts are entirely unreasonable considering that a fireplace is already firmly in the realm of surrealism.
This is the way I am too
In addition to stating what wasn't there, we need to get used to saying "at the moment". This way the expectation isn't completely ruled out, and the possibility of the thing not being there only when you observed it could still remain.
no credit for noticing the detailed shadows and reflections in the mirror? guess im dumb.
The detailed shadows did not seem out of place to me so I didn't pay much attention to them
It seems that I looked only for things that were out of the ordinary rather than focusing on what was in the painting. These two especially caught my attention: The train's shadow was misplaced and the candlestick on the right had no reflection in the mirror.
It didn't occur to me that candles were missing from the candlesticks as they didn't seem necessary. The fireplace had no room for a chimney so it didn't seem possible that there would be a fire.
I appreciate things that make me think so the brief video was not a total loss. The fact that you watched the video strongly suggests that you also wanted to learn what you could from it. That, to me, is not a sign of ignorance but it's opposite.
the other candle didnt have a reflection because the clock was blocking it. if you look at the angle of the other candle its way to the left of it in the reflection.
yeah tbh that train's shadow doesn't make much sense
I agree with the shadows, I noticed as well. The trains shadow is at an impossible angle if you compare to the other shadows. No way possible, no light reflection in the mirror either, and single light source. Though, there is a train coming out of the fireplace so... can't really expect consistency. The wrong shadowing is one of the first things I noticed.
I'm a visually stupid fuck.
it's okay, i am too.. xD
There there *pats on back*
I guess we all have different expectations of the pertinent negative. I had someone describe this to me while I sketched it and I got a very accurate result. They mentioned that there was no actual cavity in the fireplace (describing it as a "false fireplace with a solid marble back about in line with the wall") because they recognized I would assume a fireplace would have a cavity. They didn't mention that there were no candles in the candlesticks and I drew it without candles because we both seemed to agree "candlesticks" don't assume candles. They also didn't explicitly say there were no tracks under the engine car but rather stated that it was "floating from the top half of the fireplace cavity coming through the sold back" which I interpreted correctly.
I think my point is that there is an affirmative way to state a "pertinent negative." Saying a "floating train engine car" or a "false fireplace" is an accurate affirmative description of what's actually being shown and is actually a way more efficient description than trying to relate the image to something more familiar and then backtracking to remove the absent details. I'm actually trying to relate this perspective to her other health and investigatory examples and I'm not able to do so... certainly stating the absence of things are important in both of those fields... I'm just not sure it translates to art as well as she suggests.
Agree completely. I described the scene (to myself) using terms like "floating miniature steam train" and "materialized through wall".
This is art - one would EXPECT to have to use accurate affirmative descriptions, as you say, rather than try to pinpoint the countless "missing" associations that various people will come up with - eg "the train was not climbing, turning or descending"
Reminds me of the anecdotes about an art-class being asked to paint a tiger crouching in wait for its prey, which everyone did - except one painting was of a cat's glinting eyes, with just enough detail to show they belonged to a tiger, shaded behind just enough foliage to show it was lurking/hiding.
The class had produced many pictures, self-explanatory, of tigers hiding in ambush, but only one "work of art" that told a story.
I'm only at 0:50 and I notice that the first exercise is ENTIRELY reliant on understanding of language between two people.
" private eyes, are watching you! They see your every move!" That song was so telling. Wait, what was the question?
I would say the more important point is on the side of the drawer: don't make assumptions about what someone else is telling you.
this is pointless
Says the boy with the OVO owl as his profile picture
how's that relationed with this being pointless kid?
Watch the video a few more times. Maybe then you'll ....... or, probably not. Never mind.
Psychoanalysis is pointless. They are often the most disjointed individuals in all of society in their personal lives.
+Dat Swan yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I noticed all those missing parts and details including the clock time but did not really feel the need to articulate them. you need to make it clear what you want from us in your test, before the test.
No. The test reveals how you see the world and describe it without the prompt/cheat of what the test is looking for. Like saying a math test isn't fair if it doesn't provide the answers.
216trixie I did not really ask for "answers" I asked for questions. its like having a math test without the questions. and you are seriously saying this test is a one off?
I kinda see your point, But all people are capable of notice the missing bits, The test is to see If you articulate them, how you express what you see, the test was not to see if you notice it, it was to see how well you could articulate what you saw
Thinking of it as a Capital "T" Test is not really helpful in the same way you wouldn't expect a riddle to be a genuine question. It's intended to have you think about a concept as a whole (in this case, how absence can be revealing) rather than trying to grade your result.
Employing your metaphor, where most math tests ask the participant to find what X equals, this exercise seeks what X doesn't equal.
I would only mention an absence when it's relevant or anomalous. a candle holder without a candle isn't relevant or anomalous; you see those all the time. I remembered the train was floating in the air, so that makes the absence of the tracks less relevant. A fireplace without fire is very common too, you see lots of fireplaces in homes that aren't used.
So I could say that there isn't a unicorn in the photo and that would make me visually intelligent
there is no expectation for there to be a unicorn. did you even listen to her or are you just stupid?
Gotta name something someone would automatically assume would be there
Santa Claus isn't there either
Such ad hominems are unnecessary and regressive.
What if I said it was a magical wonder land. I fell like you have to know the person you're talking to, because everyone has a personal preference.
didn't see Bigfoot or a UFO
"A genius is someone who can see what no one else can."
That’s Me!!
Also the definition of hallucinations 😂
Hahahaha.. i see a ghost
"How many people didn't realize that the other candle sticks doesn't have reflection ?" yeah.. Even the painter forget about the little details..
People, it's a teaching tool, intended for a classroom environment. You're obviously not trying for the same effect if you shoehorn it into a 5 minute youtube video. No one thinks any less of you because you didn't predict what she wanted before she said it.
Too bad the people that made those types of comments are not likely to revisit the video to read yours.
They are probably the same types of people who get pissed at roguelikes because they just keep dying.
It's so important to realize that; sometimes what we aren't doing, is more important when it comes to problem solving, than what we are.
So much about learning is making the right mistakes, picking up and carrying on.
All that matters is evidence and data. Your feelings are irrelevant.
I am writing a CZcams comment, but I am not an extremely smart man.
I highlight this 'pertinent negative' specifically because I've come to the realization that most people responding in this comments section for some reason seem to think they're fucking geniuses!
Thank you Ms. Herman. I'll be looking to involve the pertinent negative in my world today.
I've found that the best way for me to solve a difficult problem is to explain it to someone else who knows nothing about it. To describe the problem such that they will understand it, you're forced to think about and explain details you hadn't previously considered. Typically, at some point during the explanation, I'll pause and go, "Oh, hold on a minute, I think I know how to solve this now" and then thank them. :)
I think this follows the same lines as explaining a painting to someone in a way that would allow them to more or less recreate the imagery as the video explains but for a different goal.
that's also a good way of spreading false information
Bryson, after you've taught them and you later realize you said something wrong, it's generally best to correct what you previously said the next time you see them.
Even if you don't get that opportunity, it's still better for you that you practice communicating and explaining different types of things to different types of people, more often than not.
Good communication skills take practice.
Also... there is no spoon.
Alas, someone who gets it.
And stepping beyond the Matrix, arguably René Magritte's most important work was not THIS image but rather "The Treachery of Images" which utilizes a pipe not a spoon to express the very same revelation.
Shut up Neo !
Pertinent (what is relevant)
Conversely in Emergency Telecommunications (such as 9-1-1) we are taught to start every call with a "blank canvass" on only fill in those details that are specifically obtained during the call. Thus, I didn't describe the lack of things because, in my line of work, NOTHING is there until you say it is.
One of the first things I noticed was something she didn't even mention: the candlestick on the right doesn't have a reflection.
The "visual intelligence test" may be bs click bait but the lesson of using "pertinent negatives" was pretty interesting.
The bigger lesson here was about impertinent negatives. Not so much about visual tests but much more about how acute we are at mentioning or perceiving the LACK of something as opposed to the presence of something. It's basically a tool you can use within logical reasoning.
The first thing I noticed was balance; the presentation was balanced off a vertical midpoint through the mirror, clock, mantle, fireplace, and train (the balance was emphasized by the pair of candlesticks; without the candlesticks, balance would not have been communicated).
The second thing I noticed was the rigidness, the staticness; almost no curves (except for the clock face and the train body), but everything else was 2-dimensional (strict verticals and horizontals in relative parallel dominated).
The third thing I noticed was directional light and shadow.
The fourth thing I noticed was the time on the clock face looked out of sync with the direction of the sunlight; either the time was wrong or the light orientation was wrong (the hand near the 9 appears to be the longer hand, so the clock reads 12:43; daylight is streaming in, so it's afternoon; the light is coming in from the right at something like a 40-degree angle, which argues for a northern hemisphere morning or a weird orientation of the room or occurring in a southern hemisphere or the time showing on the clock is wrong).
I didn't consider the oddness of a train flying out of a fireplace because it's a Magritte painting; it's supposed to be surreal.
I didn't consider the lack of fire in the fireplace because I've lived in a number of East Coast American cities that routinely contain Victorian faux fireplaces (usually beautifully carved fumed oak with an inset mirror); they have no hearth or chimney.
I didn't see candlesticks without candles as being out of place because many people (including myself) have set empty candlesticks on mantles, whether faux or functional, for the decor.
I analyzed the painting for what stood out.
I think the criteria you are applying to this 'test' is, at best, very subjective. That or you are terrible at communicating.
"And then I asked, "How many of you said there were no candles in the candle sticks?'" Why on Earth would you explain what *_isn't_* in the painting? That literally makes no sense. *There also were no elephants or trees. The sun was definitely not present, and a giant farting gorilla was also suspiciously absent!*
"...in my 3rd grade mind...", oh I see, she's a special person, and you have to talk to her like she's a child...or is she assuming that we're all fucking retarded? Either way...just...wow.
Grandpa was walking around the supermarket before getting taken into custody.
Grandpa was walking around the supermarket _with no clothes_ before getting taken into custody.
+Pogmog There is a term for "no clothes". It's called "naked".
ChaosmanOne That just goes to show how important negation is.
Take her example of the fireplace. If someone told me to draw a fireplace I would automatically draw fire in it when they didn't want it in. Which is why its important to say whats not there in addition to whats there. The painting was just an example. It is not usual for people to draw a fireplace and assume there is a " a giant farting gorilla". So that doesn't need to be said.
And it's not even 8:05. I looked at it and went "uhm it's not a realistic time. The small hand is between 8 and 9 suggesting it's around 8:30, but the long hand is right after 12. That's an unrealistic position for time". But the lady said she asks "who noticed it as 8:05". I wonder if she further asks "who actually noticed it's not actually 8:05?"
I imagine this would be something they would do for 30 minutes of a 1 hour class time, and there would be a lot more people talking about what they saw and a lot more things would be brought up. Can't expect her to mention them all when the video is under 5 minutes long.
But that was a good observation. The hand at 8 looks shorter at this resolution, but notice the tip of it's hand extends further into the ring of numerals than the hand near the 1.
It is far clearer that it's 12:43 if you look at a higher res image of the painting, like Magritte_Time-Transfixed.jpg that is 1999 x 3000.
That's true.
OhhHHhh. Didn't notice that until the high res image. 12:43 makes more sense, for sure. Funny how she mentioned 8:05, but that's another discussion. Maybe it's a misdirection on purpose, to later explain the power of suggestion or something.
mhill2468 or she is familiar with the medium (CZcams videos) and was perceptive enough to foresee that some people may be able to take in such detail. A classroom setting would be similar, where she is showing the image on a monitor or holding up a painting, or using a low res projector, people in the back of the classroom wouldn't be able to make out as much detail as those closer, to say, a painting she may be holding up with her hands.
To me that is one of the main messages of this video, that we have to remember that people don't know what we know, all we can try to do is explain our experience in the best way we think they will understand.
I think this was a good example of the perception to communication bottleneck we are getting better and better at widening, as we add new words and expressions to our language and new communication technologies ( I mean, how cool is this!? ) to our every day lives.
On the one hand, all this information is a lot to sift through, but on the other, it's already so refined. Good communication skills are the key to making the sifting for others, as quick and painless as possible. A good trait in any field for sure, but one especially valuable to life itself, in the medical fields.
I read it as 12:48.
How did she not mention that one candlestick had no reflection? That was the second thing I noticed after the train coming out of the wall...
Very interesting. I appreciate this. It points out how people have different ways of perceiving. Also that they express information differently. Yet it does not change the fact that the subject was the same. Miscommunication and confusion happens often because of this.
The only time a pertinent negative actually works is when you are saying "Mid is missing." All her other examples are either common sense or stupid.
There's a few more details missing here. The fireplace is painted as a faux fireplace. If you follow the lines of parallax in the painting, the back of the fireplace ends where the wall begins. This is further evidence by the lack of soot anywhere. Additionally, the mirror does not show what's on the other side of the room but does hint at the same color as the wall that is visible. This would mean the room is VERY Small (perhaps a hallway) as viewed from a bend very close to the observer. I'm no doctor or psychologist but this style of painting (to me) suggests the artist is at least on some level autistic or is somewhat recluse because it is highly focused on only what the artists mental eye saw and there's no sign of social items in the room. There's no related fireplace implements for agitating or moving wood for the fireplace and no grill to keep burning "flakes" within. Lastly, there's no place to put them log within the fireplace. It's dreamy but totally cold and contains only the colors white, black, gold and brown. I wonder what the artist imagined behind that faux fireplace. Perhaps a secret?
This is ridiculous. Obviously, if you're diagnosing someone medically, you have to make sure they have all the necessary symptoms to fit the diagnosis, so you have to make sure there aren't any crucial symptoms they don't have. But, in that context, those two things are essentially the same thing. You don't ask "do they have symptoms x, y, and z?" and then ask "do they not have symptoms x, y, and z?". You only need ask "do they have symptoms x, y, and z?" because if the answer is no, then the second question is already answered. For every symptom somebody does have, there are thousands of other symptoms they don't have. Nobody walks into a doctor's office and gets asked "what doesn't seem to be the problem?" and there's a bloody good reason for that! If that happened, we'd all have died of old age before a diagnosis could be made.
And obviously, if you're looking at evidence in a missing persons case, it is important to note what isn't present at the scene that should be present there. But how do you do that? By taking note of everything that *is* there and *then* looking at what's missing from that list that you might reasonably expect to find, not by looking at every scene and immediately focussing primarily on what you *can't* see in that particular area. Because something that isn't present in one area might be present in another area. So it is not in any way the same thing as looking at a painting and saying what you can't see in it.
And frankly, when she says "if you told me to draw a pair of candlesticks, I'll draw candles with flames unless you tell me not to"...well then, you're a fucking idiot, aren't you?! Would you draw a spaghetti dinner if you told you to draw a bloody plate?! Would you draw a catwalk model if I told you to draw a pair of jeans?! Ya daft cow!
This has made me unreasonably angry.
I mean, when I think of a steam train coming out of a fireplace, I assume there isn't any fire there because if there was then the train would be coming out of the fire, not just the fireplace. And I assume there aren't any tracks under the train because IT'S IN A BLOODY FIREPLACE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, HOW MANY FIREPLACES HAVE EFFING TRAIN TRACKS COMING OUT OF THEM?! If there were train tracks coming out of a fireplace, you would bloody well mention it, even if they were quite literally overshadowed by a train being on top of them.
In summary;
Complete. And utter. Bullshit.
This kind of helps me spot when a person is lying to me. I dont know how to explain it. Am i the only one?
Indeed. It’s a very useful way to spot a lie or partial truth
I can describe all kinds of things in my head, but transferring to my own language? Forget that, i suck at talking.
How about the missing reflection of the second candle in the mirror?
let me tell you why this is bs:
how many of you mentioned there was no elephant in the room?
we don't describe things by what's not there, we describe them by what IS there. If the person drawing fills in extra details that were not mentioned, that's not the person describing the scene that's at fault.
This should be called one lawyer's interesting idea about something she calls the pertinent negative. She's not measuring visual intelligence and this is not a test.
Assessing whether we saw tracks and candles is like asking us to perceive art in terms of accounting debits and credits.
Visually intelligence might have sensed the banal color taste in the picture; general strong geometry; movement before and after.
I just feel like she is switching between two sets of tasks:
1. Describe what you see (no pertinent negative required); the other person has to then draw, what I told them. Seems to me, that Mrs. Herman is unable or unwilling to follow instructions; which were in this particular case "Draw what I tell you to (i.e. don't add stuff, I haven't described)
2. Make a diagnose or work in a scientifically sound way; then you have to have a much more depth knowledge in order to recognise what is missing. The example in the medical field she puts forth is completly valid - under these circumstances you need the pertinent negative!
Conculusion: she mixes two separate tasks and tries to sell us a point by making us feel inadquate just because we followed the instructions. Feels like she is shifting the goalposts in order to get her point accross.
Who noticed the approximate location of the light source from above, based on the direction of the shadows?
The shadows from the mantle's sides do not extend into the foreground enough. It's as if the train and the rest of the scene are lit by two separate sources.
Intelligence =/= stereotyping
Transferring what you see into verbal words and sharing it with someone else does not measure visual intelligence for all of us. I am in the 99.7 percentile for visual spatial intelligence and considered "gifted" ... which actually can have the opposite affect for me. Because I take in so much information, I was also diagnosed with a motor output disability meaning I really struggle to output the information in my brain at an efficient rate with words via speech or writing. In the sense that what i really want to say and describe will come to me sometimes minutes after i see something because my brain is processing so much information that I need time to organize it internally. So to most people i come off as less intelligent because of this. Or "stoned". lol. Growing up i was always accused of being stoned when i wasn't. It was really frustrating growing up with this. Anyway just thought i would share and would be cool to know if anyone can relate!
I deal with this same problem & think to myself if I receive similar responses from other people thinking I'm slow or suffering from a disability.
No way! I geuss I'm not alone afterall :) @@OneusXi
This is really interesting. May have to get her book. I have autism so I literally just would draw what is told to me without the fire or the candles, but I also wouldn’t say there isn’t fire or candles.
I now realise what is was that wasn't there that I did not notice. Awesome!
This is equally a lesson in not being so presumptuous
There is a small steam train levitating in a fireplace, also David Blaine is not there, along with any other explaination of why a train would levitate in a fireplace. It's fucking odd, if I ever encounter that situation, I would be relaying the information pertaining to the floating train rather than the texture of the floorboards. In fact, the floating train is the only reason I bother mentioning that scenario at all. It's also a lesson in sticking to the point of your stories, instead of bullshitting on about wainscoting when a miracle is taking place
I can assume that my partner has the intelligence to either anticipate or not, but having the burden of 'what's not there' I think not. It's a cute point but it seems like common sense.
Is this only applicable to things that we have primary knowledge or common sense of? Coz we have to know what should be there, to point out what is not there. But is this, in some way, limiting our thinking, if we always rely on our common sense? I am confused, as this kind of thinking reminds me of Sherlock Holmes, but he seemed to use it very well.
I would've said it was just a dull, empty fireplace except for the floating train coming out of the middle of the fireplace. Including any details of fire or logs would be a waste of time. You can describe it as "empty" or unprepped.
who noticed there was no setup knobs for the watch in the reflection?
Hmm....the fireplace had no place to make fire, so why would I miss it there? It seems like a sealed fireplace -which was my observation.
The train tracks: wouldn't they be missing ground, bridge, etc below them as well? Where do I stop?
Candlestick holders: I have one on my table right next to my computer screen and it has no candle in it - so I am probably used to seeing them without candlestick in it? They seem very natural as they are on the picture.
I thought the candle sticks were mini Bluetooth speakers. And I thought the train was mounted on a cement wall that looked like a fireplace. I also thought how the shadows don't make sense in a single light source space, considering the train and the rest of the space.
Also that the mirror was not reflecting much else in front of it. I found the piece surrealistic, so the time didn't matter to me as I knew this was something far from anything I need practical information from. If you take the viewer out of real life practical situations, your theory of practical thinking simply fails to be valuable. Having said that, I love that BigThink has such challenges and expands our limited understanding of how we process visual information to discriptions we value in our minds to share with others.
For reference, the video gave about 20 seconds as opposed to the minute mentioned by the speaker. So if you were trying to test yourself and didn't manage, don't feel bad because it wasn't a completely fair shot.
I think the application of this 'intelligence' is more for identifying what's wrong and what needs to be done. It's not about how much you perceive or your ability to appreciate or analyze what's there. I think it's more for identifying the negatives/problems so you can work well with the system like the medical standards in the pneumonia story.
What about the lighting in the room? There's two sources.
Very interesting! What she doesn't mention here (no surprise as a video is short, but for sure she knows all about it) is the concept of different behavioral biases. For example, humans are subject to the confirmation bias - we like to confirm our own initial guess sometimes failing to recognize that there's simply not enough information to prove our guess. That's why discussing "absent information" (information that should be there for you to be right but is actually not there) is very important. It helps us minimize the effect of confirmation bias.
I never assume anything, and it annoys the hell out of people:
*"Tom and Jill both have $5. Jill gives Tom $2. How much money does Jill have?"*
"Sorry. When you say _both_, do you mean they each have $5, or the total amount between them is $5?"
*"They each have $5."*
"Okay. And does Jill have any extra money? I mean, technically, she could have $100 and $5 at the same time, so..."
*"Jill has no more than $5."*
"Thank you. Is this in the form of a $5 bill, or five $1 bills?"
*"Why does that even matter?"*
"Well, if she only has a $5 bill, the only way she could give Tom $2 is by giving him the whole $5."
*"She has five $1 bills."*
"As she is handing $2 to Tom, correct?"
*"Yes..."*
"No more than $2?"
*"Yes..."*
"And the question is asking how much money she has before or after giving Tom $2?"
*"After!"*
"How long after?"
*"Oh, forget it!"*
"How To Describe Pictures to Someone Who Doesn't Think Like You"
If someone tells me there are candlesticks, I'm drawing candleSTICKS, because that's what they described.
There's a valid idea hinted at here, but it's not related to "visual intelligence", and it wasn't elucidated in this video; the fact that people have a hard time knowing what other people DON'T know, IE "the curse of knowledge". But this video was kind of all over the place and only hinted at information that I've learned from other sources.
Tell what you see. Not what you don’t see.
A list of what is not there can go on forever.
Unless you are interested in knowing presence or absence of specific thing. But you should be told or know beforehand to look for those details. As in science.
I dunno, not to knock the lady or her test but we were asked to catalog what we discover, I noticed there weren’t tracks, flames, etc but I was looking at a surreal image and didn’t put much thought into it beyond that. In addition to those absences, I also noticed there are no dogs, cats, or pigs in the image either. In fact if we’re talking about what’s missing from the image then we can go on infinitely. Of course a forensic scientist or a doctor is going to try to weed out what’s pertinent and present from what’s absent or elusive, that’s part of the discovery process, it’s not like some secret technique that only they’re capable of, if they don’t run through the myriad of possibilities then they’re probably a quack. Literally anybody can tell you what isn’t there if you instruct them to do so, but telling them to describe what they see and then measuring their visual intelligence based on their intuiting what isn’t there is like pulling the rug from underneath. One exception might be the absence of the reflection of the candle on the right, as it stands juxtaposed to the candle and clock’s reflection. I’d say noting the time on the clock is a good indicator of awareness too, I didn’t take note of that one. Like if a detective was investigating a burglary and deducted that there was no sign of embezzlement then you wouldn’t give them a medal, you’d say okay now tell us what we are actually looking at here.
But what about those of us who never said "fireplace" because there wasn't one? There was a mantle, sure, but why describe what isn't there when you have limited time (this is a test after all)? I didn't mention candles either, because there weren't any.
I got stuck at the so called fireplace, b/c it's construction made no sense. Much to shallow. Not enough space for a propper chimney. By the time I decided to call it a white shallow mamor table on two columns, the minute was up.
The astute among you may have notice the lack of Charley Sheen in the painting. It's not easy to notice, but there is approximately 0% of sheen in the painting.
The absence of symptom three doesn’t necessarily mean pneumonia is not present.
I got all of the concepts that she mentioned, but my thought atm was that I have no idea the scale of thus room. My mind went in the direction that it was either a large and pristine room or a smaller l, more messy room that had just been cleaned in a small area. it's probably a psychological "tell".
this*
This isn't a test for you to take solo at home infront off your computer.
You are the observer. Your friend is about to draw a picture, using your perspective on things.
And if you forget to transfer the information about the rails under the train beeing non-existent, the outcome off that picture is gonna look completely different.
A detail like that, will even be hard for you to notice aswell if you didnt have the original sitting right infront off you to compare. So by staring yourself blind on what IS in the picture, you didn't notice what isn't.
If you are visually intelligent, i suspect that you would get an outcome closer to the original and bring you closer to the truth/diagnosis/ other things in life that might be off importance. Getting you to an end goal alot faster by just looking at what isn't. I think that's pretty neat.
Insanely interesting!! Good stuff as usual, Big Think.
But even in medicine, sometimes things are atypical. A symptom might not be there, but it is still an illness that that symptom is typical for.
I enjoyed this video but think it should have been titled differently.
How many people noticed the code violations?
Newly furnished room of a very beautiful gothic style mansion, as the mirror upon the fireplace shows nothing in other direction, so might be things are moving in or out, clock shows 12:42 or :43 and the fireplace looks like made of expensive and beautiful white marble, 2 candlesticks and the train there is kind of made me think like a couple came there to see the house and their child came into room and somehow put the toy train there and ran to call the parents to show how the child made it swing in the air, the wooden floor's also looks very lavish.
The most pertinent negative in the video is that she didn't tell us to describe what isn't there.
Oh my gosh, I love her speaking style. And what a great smile. Great video!
How many of you can close your eyes and simply recall the image in all its detail. If I focus that long on an image I will not quickly forget anything about it to be honest. I wonder how other people recall the image. How does it work for you?
Always look for whats NOT there but should be. You might just be surprised.
There is actually a reflection of the second candle holder in the mirror but it isn't visible due to the angle. How about that.
I mentioned all of those things (except for the proper term for the wood rectangles on the wall, because didn't know what they were called). Did anyone think to mention that the candle holder on the right had no visible reflection? (Maybe it's hidden by the clock, or maybe it's made from vampire flesh.)
I caught that also. While looking at the picture a second time I noticed that the candlesticks and clock cast no shadows on the mantle.
Interesting thoughts but it is sort of looking for things that we as humans expect to be there - if a candlestick was described- why would you add a candle to it? In art shadows are important- i would go to describe more of how objects are positioned vs how realistic to life something is......
This is powerful for filmmaking
However, this doesn't take into account those with a logical mind, if someone says "candlesticks" they don't see candlesticks with candles, wicks and flames. If someone says "train" they see a train, in the abstract, not on tracks etc. unless they are told it on tracks and/or is a diesel electric/steam/ etc. don't assume everyone is as stupid as you assume. visual intelligence and logical thought are very different fields.
Another example in the movies when an actor notices that there are no family pictures on the wall.
this is more like visual remembering rather than visual memory. a picture of a train for example, it doesn't matter if there is no fire etc. its surreal, you accept it the way it is. what isn't in the image doesn't much matter, especially when i'm explaining it to a person, i would say, there is no fire.... we can all agree there is no dragon in there, and there is no marching band too. its just what is in there.
This doesn't make sence. The picture isn't realistic, so no fire or tracks are necessary. If it were a picture of a train traveling on a realistic setting, then I would expect tracks and therefore notice that they weren't there. But a flying train and a fake fireplace is not where I would expect fire or tracks. Because tracks are not part of a train and fire is not part of a fireplace. They have relationships with them, but are not part of the actual thing.
I don't know about this. I feel like this is pretentious psychoanalysis trying just a little too hard on finding deep meaning on minimalist organic thought.
And ironically, the example in this 'test' they use is an interpretable piece of expression.
They give you instructions on their specific approach after the test, not to correct you, but to humor a process of thought that you probably wouldn't have used otherwise.
What bothers me the most is that it's counter intuitive because it's timed! Sure, fully registering what is there and not, considering both the positive and negative helps clarify what the picture is. But that's critical thinking, not quick observational analysis!
5 seconds. What's your favorite color?
"Blue."
That's interesting. But, did you ever think why it's not red? Why is that? This is called, 'Intuitive Spectrum Intelligence'.
"Fuck you."
The thing is, if you know about this kind of test, you will look for the negatives as well and get a better score than someone who didn't know about that. So I don't know exactly what the point of this is then besides showing how the brain works.
very very great speaker and content
I’m not convinced that the “pertinent negative” is the same thing as the logic of deduction, as suggested by the speaker in the case of diagnosing pneumonia. That’s because “pertinent” is highly subjective and context-sensitive. Pertinent to whom and to what? I have heard many criticisms of academic papers, for example, that aim to fault a study for what it is not, or for what it lacks. Occasionally these criticisms strike me as justified, but usually they are biased or nit-picking or mean-spirited. It’s just better to take reality for what it is, rather than for what it’s not. Candlesticks are not candles; sorry your personal assumption leapt to that conclusion.
Visual and seeing are the same thing, then? The "pertinent negative" is mentioned in two different scenarios- assessing a visual and assessing a situation. Sure, you have to look at a patient to assess them as a medical professional, but you're working with all types of data- not just visual. So how is "Visual Intelligence" directly linked to being able to notice patterns and identify a syndrome?
If noticing pertinent negatives is a strength and/or a sign of a developed mind, I don't think it's a purely visual skill.
Sometimes people don't see what IS there. Take a city slicker fishing in a country river in Oz and they might say they have seen no snakes. If you point out that they've been fishing right next to one for the last half hour they will freak (as happened once to a mate who visited me). From then on they will learn to quickly see snakes everywhere (this is Oz after all). Same hunting rabbits. A country person can spot them easily in gorse or undergrowth; it takes practice for someone who lives in a city to be able to do that.
This can hardly be a measurement for intelligence of any kind. Visual depiction accuracy is shaped by perception which is a culmination of everything a mind prioritize from most recent to past and duration of exposure for depiction. Lots of other factors kick in such as cultural background, language proficiency, state of mind etc.
that was very well explained. i like this video.
I noticed today is 9/11
I get what she meant (after the examples with missing person and medical diagnosis), but that painting is a horrible example. Immediately when I saw it, I thought: "This picture is break all kinds of rules" and I did not give it no further attention. Nothing is pertinent in a picture like this. I would see a lot of out of place things in a realistic picture, like a doctored photograph.
Good reminder video, title is totally misleading.