Shape, form and pattern biases
This post looks at a common automatic bias that helps form visual perception
Human visual perception is profoundly influenced by biases about forms, shapes and patterns. Humans have ingrained and nonconscious attractions for specific forms, shapes and patterns. Some of these biases are innate, while others are learned. These biases greatly influence how we perceive, organize and label information, and are essential to the quick identifications needed to go through life.
You instantly perceived a dog in the black shape at the topc, even though the shape lacked fur, eyes, whiskers, correct size, and other essential doggy details. You did not have to contemplate the shape. You perceived it instantly.
The problem for humans is that their biases for certain shapes, forms, and patterns are so strong and ingrained that they will perceive these things when they don’t objectively exist. These biases lead to many visual illusions.
Our form and pattern biases are shown when we perceive horses or castles or hot rods or other familiar shapes in clouds. These ‘identifications’ are subjective to the viewer, and do not objectively exist in the cloud. There are thousands of possible connect-the-dot shapes in a cloud, but you perceive, or mentally pick out, that which matches your knowledge. The horse or castle is a projection of what exists in your mind. If there were no horses on earth or in fantasy books, you would not perceive a horse in the cloud, as you wouldn’t ‘recognize’ it.
In the above image, people perceive a person in the lines and squiggles of the Rembrandt etching just as many do an animal in the cloud.
The connect-the-dot figures in stars don't exist except as we draw them. The familiar faces or figures we perceive in burnt toast, wood grain, and stones are projections of our minds. What you perceive is as much a reflection of you as what you are looking at.
I hope it dawns on you when you pick up a stone that ‘looks just like Elvis,’ the stone existed long before Elvis was born. It would be silly to believe the stone was formed by glaciers 10,000 years ago to commemorate Elvis’ future rise to popularity on the pop charts.
.
The Face on Mars
In 1976 the NASA spacecraft Viking 1 took photographs of an area on Mars that contained many giant mesas, craters, and other geological formations. One of the mesas in the photographs somewhat resembled a human face.
As should not be unexpected, many humans on earth became interested in this ‘human face,’ and, not surprisingly, were less interested in the formations that didn’t resemble human body parts. Some were and still are convinced the mesa was constructed by intelligent life forms.
This perception of a face is a pattern bias, a projection of the viewer’s mind whose own face has a similar form. If someone has patterns in her mind (human face, kitty cat, square, letter ‘B,’ house key, baseball cap, house) and looks at enough information (such as all the geological formations on a planet’s surface), she will be able to pick out some of these patterns in the information. Seeing the ‘face of Nixon’ isn’t proof a potato was built by an intelligent life form. It means that out of millions and millions and millions of potatoes, a few are bound to somewhat resemble a former US President who had a sticky-outy nose.
As the following images show, the face on Mars is just one of many mesas, hills, and craters that come in a wide variety of shapes.
Years later, the above photograph of the same mesa was shot at a different angle and time of day. This shows that angle and shadow contribute to the perception of a face. If originally shot at this angle and time of day, the mesa may not have been perceived as a face and humans on earth would have considered it no more significant than any of the other blobs in the photographs.
.
Is it a Vase or Two Faces
The standard ‘Is it a vase or is it two faces looking at each other?’ visual illusion shows that humans project a subjective, or personal, identity onto an object. You initially see a black vase or a pair of white faces looking at each other. As you stare longer your perception will be replaced by the other view, then your perception will flip back and forth between the two views. The image is unchanging, while your perception of it changes.
Of course, it is neither a vase nor faces, but a black and white abstract pattern. The pattern could be perceived as many things. However, in part by your biases and by the leading question (‘Is it a vase or faces?’), you perceived a vase and faces. As I look at the image, I could see how the top or bottom portion could be perceived as two boots placed back to back. The chin-to-nose areas could be perceived as little black faces. The black shape could be seen as a table. There’s no reason, beyond the viewer’s predilection for order, that the pattern has to depict anything specific.
The following are examples of perceptions through shape, pattern, and form biases.
.
An old joke
A psychologist shows his new patient a Rorschach inkblot picture and asks her what she sees. She giggles and says “It's a naked man and a naked woman kissing.” He shows her another Rorschach inkblot and asks what she sees. She giggles again and says “It's a man and a woman making love on a table.” He shows her another Rorschach picture and she says “It's a couple having sex in bed.” The psychologist says “You seem to have a preoccupation with sex.” She says, “Me?! You're the one with the dirty pictures.”
.
Questions
Does all seemingly objective perception involve subjective shape and pattern biases?
Can our ‘objective’ identification of an object be legitimately perceived and identified in different ways?
Are human identification and definition of objects the result of a species bias, and other species might legitimately identify and define things differently?