3465 Negative vs positive perception

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

You’re pro-life AND pro-war? I’m anti-hypocrite, thanks.

---------------------------------------------

I read an article on perception this morning, at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/14/if-you-cant-notice-a-gorilla-how-the-heck-can-you-testify-as-a-witness/, about how we don't see what we are not expecting to see, and how being focused on something can blank out other things, and how that affects jury expectations and eyewitness testimony.

Yeah. I've often said that even if a miscreant were three inches from my face, I'm not sure I could pick him out of a lineup, even if I had known him for years. I don't believe anyone else can, either, not positively. I have been told many times that I was SEEN places I've never been, doing things I have never done, they were absolutely positive it was me, and I'm a bit unique in appearance so that's very hard to understand.

As usual, I read the comments, and as usual the comments generated discussion beyond the topic. This particular off-topic comment was interesting:

...Could this relate to the percentage of us that will persistently perceive the negative, when no bias or even a positive bias is expressed? Those that will always look for the hidden message which must of course be negative? Then again, some percentage of the population will always perceive the positive, when negative aspects are presented? Would the term “Predetermined Perception (of reality)” apply to either? Are both simply alternate ways of filtering the real world to fit our expectations?....

Daughter is one of those folks who, if there's any necessity to fill in the blanks, any action or comment she doesn't fully understand, will always fill in negatively. She will attribute negative motives where none exist, until proven differently. That expectation is just a part of her personality, and has existed since infancy.

I'm mostly the opposite. I give the benefit of doubt. I expect and will attribute positive or neutral motives right up until the other person slaps me in the face. And even then, I try to understand why.

I'm not sure which is better.

Daughter assumes negativity, and is satisfied when she is right, and is pleasantly surprised when she's wrong.

I make positive assumptions, but being right is just "eh", and when I'm proven wrong I am terribly, deeply, hurt by the abuse of my trust.

So in the long run, maybe Daughter is happier? Maybe she's not because it's not often her negative assumptions are corrected, so she doesn't trust easily? Am I and my Pollyanna outlook better off, because it mostly doesn't matter when I'm wrong since I seldom actually get hurt? Is it better to run negative with frequent peaks of pleasant surprise, or to run positive with occasional plunges of hurt and disappointment?

Eh?

If someone says something to you and you're not sure where they're coming from do you assume a positive meaning or a negative meaning?
If you see someone hanging around outside a building, do you assume they're waiting for a ride, or that they're scoping the place out for a robbery?
Do you assume people want to take from you or give to you?
Do you interpret things negatively or positively until otherwise proven? And why?

--------------------------------

A quick example from a few weeks ago. Daughter and I were on a main road at about 5:30 pm, traffic was heavy, when we passed a house with a business-suited woman trying to open a front window, next to the front door, only a few feet from the road. She had gotten out of her car parked in front of the house and had gone straight to the window. Daughter wanted to call 911 and report a break-in in progress. I was not concerned. I pointed out that there was too much stop-and-go traffic and she was too visible for it to be a break-in. My immediate assumption was that she had locked herself out.

(I'd have been more concerned if she were working on a side or back window, and wearing something other than a skirt and high heels. And even if it was a break-in, being that visible, I'll bet she is known to the occupants.)

What would you think? Which way would you be inclined to jump first?
.

3180 Gathering, Image, Id card

Sunday, March 6, 2011

There can’t be sin without knowledge.

-------------------------------

Friday I went 13 minutes up the road to the Central NJ regional gathering. It started at 4 pm on Friday, and went 'til about noonish today, with conversation and food in the hospitality room, a slate of speakers, and people from all over the north east in attendance. I heard one of the organizers say they had about 200 people registered, but I don't know where they were all hiding, because it didn't seem like that many to me.

The Man and I had met at this gathering four years ago, so this is sorta like an anniversary for us. It was a fluke that he was there that year. He just doesn't enjoy the gatherings.

I got a room at the host hotel for Friday night, but not for Saturday, because not much happens on Sunday anyway, so I figured I'd leave late Saturday night.

I sent The Man a note mid-week to tell him I'd be there and would love to see him. He's been working in Delaware, so I was a bit shocked (and very happy) when he said yes. He arrived Friday evening, bearing sushi, and we had dinner in the room. He'd said he had to leave on Saturday for a 4 pm dinner with his son, but what I didn't realize was that he'd be meeting his son in Maryland. So he left a little before noon Saturday. That means he drove from Delaware to central NJ to see me, then drove back through Delaware to Maryland - I was way out of his way. I am gratified. It feels good.

Back in the Hospitality room, many people were commenting (not exactly complaining) that they were disappointed in the speakers. Seems like nobody was up to par. There were no topics that interested me until a 4 pm talk on "Humor", by a guy who was the 2006 Time magazine "Man of the Year". I thought that would be good. Like what makes something funny? What are the differences in regional or national humor? What effect does laughter have on one's attitude and health? On brain chemistry? Why do some people find some things funny (like slapstick, the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers, Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men) that others (like me) find offensive? What is the anatomy of a joke? There were so many approaches that would have been interesting.

A series of ancient jokes wasn't it.

I actually left the room before it ended, and I rarely walk out on a speaker. Sorry. I was tired (a night with The Man does that...) and I was falling asleep sitting there, which I suspect is worse than quietly creeping out.

There was nothing else on the roster that interested me, so after wandering around a bit and talking to a few people, I left. I was home by 6:30 pm, and in bed by 10.

-------------------------------

When a perfectly presentable person looks in the mirror, and sees a fat slob, or an ugly face, or is generally unhappy with their appearance, we have names for that. It's seen as a psychological problem. A disconnect between reality and perception.

I wonder if there's a name for my problem. When I look in the mirror, I'm happy with what I see. I think I look not only fine, but downright sexy, verging on pretty. Everything about my mirror image pleases me, and I think I'm being critical and realistic.

But when I see a photo of me, I'm shocked. Look at the wrinkles! The scars! The sags! The belly sticking out! The thunder thighs! The thin shapeless hair! The droopy neck! The yellow crooked teeth! Where did all those chins come from! My God, that nose is HUGE! Who IS that person!

And then I'm embarrassed. I wonder, when people look at me, do they see my mirror image or the photo image? I guess I have a disconnect between reality and perception, too. But is it good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy?

--------------------------------

I keep hearing that the Conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party folks, most, anyway, want less government messing in our lives. But read this: http://www.switched.com/2011/03/03/real-id-act-republicans-push-to-enact/.

It seems to me that what they really mean is less regulation of corporations and big business (campaign contributors), but more messing in and control of the lives of the "little people".

I don't see where a national id card would be any safer than the existing ids. The terrorists used faked driver's licenses. Would faking a national card be any more difficult? Especially when much of the info comes from state DMVs anyway? Seems to me it's more like an excuse to gather information on me, and you, and everyone else. That's all. An extension of the Patriot Act that has already destroyed our privacy, gone a major step farther.
.