Clowns are funny. Clowns are entertaining. Everybody loves clowns, don't they?
I think most people do, yet there are those that find them creepy. Disturbing even. Small children may initially react with terror to a clown before they learn that the clown is just a funny man. I'm reminded of Seinfeld's Kramer and his aversion to clowns. I think of the creepy clowns in fiction, such as the clown in Stephen King's It.
So what gives. Why do clowns so easily give rise to the creep factor?. I don't know - not for sure, but I recently read an article in New Scientist that seemed to raise some possibilities. It was talking about the creep factor in the character of Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies, which they referred to as the gollum effect. It refers to the fact that people are more creeped out by human like creatures rather then non-human creatures. It is like the twisted humanity is disturbing on some level.
This is an area of some investigation by robotics researchersinterested in human-robot interaction. These researchers call it "The uncanny valley" effect. Robots that are clearly robots do not seem disturbing to the average person, but the closer they come to simulating human features, the more likely they are to seem disturbing. They think that this causes a breach of expectations in the mirror neurons of the brain - the appearance of humanlike characteristics in something that is less than human jarring on the mind.
It is suggested that this is an innate reaction to the detection of infectious disease. A diseased person seems less then human - the characteristics of their disease jar on the expectations of humanity, causing an avoidance reaction, which would probably be a wise move on the part of primitive persons, who would thereby avoid infection.
This brings us back to clowns, humans who act in aberrant ways, and appear different to regular humans. Could it be that adverse reactions to clowns in some people and small children is caused by the same process? Just a bit of speculation, but something to think about.
Be seeing you,
Escherwolf (who has nothing against clowns).
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Friday, 30 November 2007
Working the Chain Gang
Ever had trouble learning a routine that has many steps? Ever considered learning it in steps by learning the last step first? Sounds kind of freaky doesn't it, yet...
Psychologists have studied various techniques for teaching complex tasks to developmentally disabled persons who otherwise have trouble learning. They see the steps in a task as a chain of actions with stimulus-response links. What they try to achieve is to make a given action step or its result a stimulus to the next action in the chain.
There are three ways of teaching a chain. The first is probably the most intuitive, and the one usually defaulted to by persons who are not developmentally disabled. This method is called Total Task Presentation. The learner attempts to do all the steps in sequence from beginning to end until the task is mastered.
The second method is Forward Chaining, in which the learner masters the first step completely, then proceeds to the second step, and so on. In this way, the sequence of steps is built up gradually from first to last as each step is mastered.
The final method is Backward Chaining, in which the chain is still divided into simple steps, but the last step is learnt first. Once mastered, the second to last step is taught. This allows the student to automatically flow onto the end of the task, using the end state of the second to last state as the stimulus for the response of the last step. The routine is progressively built up from last to first, so that by the time the first step is being mastered, all the other steps should follow automatically as a series of linked stimulus-response actions.
Now, I am not advocating that any particular method of learning by chains should be used. What I'm suggesting is that if you are stuck on learning a magic sequence, trying a different method of chaining may help you to make progress. It pays to understand not just what you wish to accomplish, but the different methods by which you might accomplish it.
Be seeing you,
Escherwolf.
Psychologists have studied various techniques for teaching complex tasks to developmentally disabled persons who otherwise have trouble learning. They see the steps in a task as a chain of actions with stimulus-response links. What they try to achieve is to make a given action step or its result a stimulus to the next action in the chain.
There are three ways of teaching a chain. The first is probably the most intuitive, and the one usually defaulted to by persons who are not developmentally disabled. This method is called Total Task Presentation. The learner attempts to do all the steps in sequence from beginning to end until the task is mastered.
The second method is Forward Chaining, in which the learner masters the first step completely, then proceeds to the second step, and so on. In this way, the sequence of steps is built up gradually from first to last as each step is mastered.
The final method is Backward Chaining, in which the chain is still divided into simple steps, but the last step is learnt first. Once mastered, the second to last step is taught. This allows the student to automatically flow onto the end of the task, using the end state of the second to last state as the stimulus for the response of the last step. The routine is progressively built up from last to first, so that by the time the first step is being mastered, all the other steps should follow automatically as a series of linked stimulus-response actions.
Now, I am not advocating that any particular method of learning by chains should be used. What I'm suggesting is that if you are stuck on learning a magic sequence, trying a different method of chaining may help you to make progress. It pays to understand not just what you wish to accomplish, but the different methods by which you might accomplish it.
Be seeing you,
Escherwolf.
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Lay Audiences and Magician Audiences
So when you go to watch a magician perform, how do you watch him? As a magician - or as a layperson? This could be an important question, as both bring different mindsets to how a performance is decoded. More than one magic theorist has pointed to the difference - Wonder, Ortiz and Weber to name just a few.
In "Scientific American Mind" magazine Volume 18, #1, there is an article called "Jumping to Conclusions" by Deanna Kuhn. It's an article detailing her work in the area of human fallability when it comes to reasoning. Essentially she shows that when evaluating a situation, people cannot help but jump to conclusions based on their own knowledge. Therefore the specifics of the situation are disregarded in favour of what the person might know about those kinds of situations in general, leading to an erroneous conclusion. My own current thesis deals with how old age stereotypes may bias juror's thinking in evaluating the testimony of elders.
In any case, if we apply this to magic we find that... well, that magic theorists are already aware of it. It is one reason (but not the only reason) why an audience of magicians perceive a likely magic trick differently to lay audiences. This was most elegantly discussed in "Designing Miracles" by Darwin Ortiz, a book I highly recommend to all magicians.
Ortiz suggests that magician's will try to understand a magic trick using their technical knowledge where-as lay audiences just try to use commonsense. For magicians, their expertise prevents them from seeing the commonsense explanations that a layperson would leap to. He gives the example of Fred Kaps foiling an audience of magicians with a coin through handkerchief. The magicians couldn't figure it out despite all the technical knowledge they threw at it. The truth of the matter is that, as a joke, Kaps had simply cut a hole in the handkerchief and passed the coin through it, an explanation which would have immediately occurred to a layperson. Magicians on the other hand, wouldn't even consider an explanation so simple.
On "Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour" DVDs, there's a good example of using a magician's technical knowledge against him. In the Egypt episode, a local magician named Karam demonstrates the cups and balls for Teller. Teller watches Karam perform all the moves suggesting that the balls are no longer distributed one under each cup, but are actually under the centre cup. In fact, they were still one under each cup - Karam had used Teller's knowledge and expectations against him.
Anyway the point of this is not about showing how you can fool magicians. Rather, it is about the neccessity of assessing how a trick is perceived from a lay point of view. You may be a highly knowledgeable magician, but you must still try to cultivate a layperson's viewpoint in order to assess how a trick, whether yours or someone else's, appears to a layperson. Remember, the illusion occurs in the layperson's head, not yours.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf
In "Scientific American Mind" magazine Volume 18, #1, there is an article called "Jumping to Conclusions" by Deanna Kuhn. It's an article detailing her work in the area of human fallability when it comes to reasoning. Essentially she shows that when evaluating a situation, people cannot help but jump to conclusions based on their own knowledge. Therefore the specifics of the situation are disregarded in favour of what the person might know about those kinds of situations in general, leading to an erroneous conclusion. My own current thesis deals with how old age stereotypes may bias juror's thinking in evaluating the testimony of elders.
In any case, if we apply this to magic we find that... well, that magic theorists are already aware of it. It is one reason (but not the only reason) why an audience of magicians perceive a likely magic trick differently to lay audiences. This was most elegantly discussed in "Designing Miracles" by Darwin Ortiz, a book I highly recommend to all magicians.
Ortiz suggests that magician's will try to understand a magic trick using their technical knowledge where-as lay audiences just try to use commonsense. For magicians, their expertise prevents them from seeing the commonsense explanations that a layperson would leap to. He gives the example of Fred Kaps foiling an audience of magicians with a coin through handkerchief. The magicians couldn't figure it out despite all the technical knowledge they threw at it. The truth of the matter is that, as a joke, Kaps had simply cut a hole in the handkerchief and passed the coin through it, an explanation which would have immediately occurred to a layperson. Magicians on the other hand, wouldn't even consider an explanation so simple.
On "Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour" DVDs, there's a good example of using a magician's technical knowledge against him. In the Egypt episode, a local magician named Karam demonstrates the cups and balls for Teller. Teller watches Karam perform all the moves suggesting that the balls are no longer distributed one under each cup, but are actually under the centre cup. In fact, they were still one under each cup - Karam had used Teller's knowledge and expectations against him.
Anyway the point of this is not about showing how you can fool magicians. Rather, it is about the neccessity of assessing how a trick is perceived from a lay point of view. You may be a highly knowledgeable magician, but you must still try to cultivate a layperson's viewpoint in order to assess how a trick, whether yours or someone else's, appears to a layperson. Remember, the illusion occurs in the layperson's head, not yours.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf
Sunday, 25 March 2007
DVDs, Learning and Mirror neurons.
So, I'm a Bibliophile from way back. Books have always stacked up in various rooms around the house.
Currently, there is much discussion on various magic forums about books versus DVDs as ways of learning magic. Usually someone comes in and says that books give better value than DVDs. In many ways, this is true. Yet when it comes to learning something such as sleight of hand, or any other activity that depends on specific actions, I find it easier to learn off DVDs. Why is it so? (as Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to say).
One answer might be because of the activities of Mirror Neurons. What are mirror neurons? I'm going to quote Marco Iacoboni's succinct explanation from his essay in "What is your Dangerous Idea?", a book that I prevously recommended.
Mirror neurons are cells located in the premotor cortex, the part of the brain relevant to the planning, selection, and execution of actions. In the ventral sector of the premotor cortex, ther are cells that fire in relation to specific goal-related motor acts, such as grasping, holding, and bringing to the mouth. Surprisingly, a subset of these cells - what we call mirror neurons - also fire when we observe somebody else perforning the same action. The behaviour of these cells seems to suggest that the observer is looking at his or her own actions reflected in the mirror while watching someone else's actions. My group has shown, in several studies, that human mirror neuron areas are also critical to imitation. There is evidence that the activation of this neural system is fairly automatic, thus suggesting that it may bypass conscious mediation. Moreover, mirror neurons also code the intention associated with the observed actions, even there is not a one-to-one mapping between actions and intentions. (I can grasp a cup because I want to drink, or because I want to put it in the dishwasher.) This suggests that the system can indeed code sequences of action (that is what happens when I grasp the cup), even though only one act in the sequence has been observed.
So , you got all that? You read a description of a sleight in a book, but no matter how well decribed it is, it gives you a conscious, intellectual understanding of the sleight. If, however you see it demonstrated in a DVD (and especially in super-practice sessions), then you get the added advantages of the mirror neurons encoding the actions directly into the premotor cortex. In a word, showing is better than just telling.
Just something to think about. (I still buy lots of books though).
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Currently, there is much discussion on various magic forums about books versus DVDs as ways of learning magic. Usually someone comes in and says that books give better value than DVDs. In many ways, this is true. Yet when it comes to learning something such as sleight of hand, or any other activity that depends on specific actions, I find it easier to learn off DVDs. Why is it so? (as Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to say).
One answer might be because of the activities of Mirror Neurons. What are mirror neurons? I'm going to quote Marco Iacoboni's succinct explanation from his essay in "What is your Dangerous Idea?", a book that I prevously recommended.
Mirror neurons are cells located in the premotor cortex, the part of the brain relevant to the planning, selection, and execution of actions. In the ventral sector of the premotor cortex, ther are cells that fire in relation to specific goal-related motor acts, such as grasping, holding, and bringing to the mouth. Surprisingly, a subset of these cells - what we call mirror neurons - also fire when we observe somebody else perforning the same action. The behaviour of these cells seems to suggest that the observer is looking at his or her own actions reflected in the mirror while watching someone else's actions. My group has shown, in several studies, that human mirror neuron areas are also critical to imitation. There is evidence that the activation of this neural system is fairly automatic, thus suggesting that it may bypass conscious mediation. Moreover, mirror neurons also code the intention associated with the observed actions, even there is not a one-to-one mapping between actions and intentions. (I can grasp a cup because I want to drink, or because I want to put it in the dishwasher.) This suggests that the system can indeed code sequences of action (that is what happens when I grasp the cup), even though only one act in the sequence has been observed.
So , you got all that? You read a description of a sleight in a book, but no matter how well decribed it is, it gives you a conscious, intellectual understanding of the sleight. If, however you see it demonstrated in a DVD (and especially in super-practice sessions), then you get the added advantages of the mirror neurons encoding the actions directly into the premotor cortex. In a word, showing is better than just telling.
Just something to think about. (I still buy lots of books though).
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Saturday, 24 March 2007
What if I started a Blog?
So what if I started a blog? Is there a point? Is there something to say that's worth imposing on other people? I really don't know.
Of late I've been reading a lot of other people's blogs. Some felt like filler. Others like the product of deep thinkers. Still others like like the results of a GIGO process. In all cases, though, it allowed me to glimpse at someone else's thinking, whether right or wrong, tasteful or distasteful. This mental voyeurism is somewhat interesting, particularly for someone like me, who, as a mature age student returned to university to study psychology. So here I am, ready to share my own thoughts to whoever is interested.
So what do I think about? Well, psychology for a start, and the nature of belief, and why people believe the things they do. I'm a skeptic by nature, an atheist, a materialist and by turns cynical and hopeful. I love science, but I'm not a scientist per se - still you'll find that I'm a greater admirer of Darwin and Dawkins than I am of religious dogma, though I try to respect people's right to believe as they will (as long as they extend to me the right not to believe).
My hobbies are eclectic. Apart from reading, watching TV, enjoying movies, spending time with my lady and my dog ( a beautiful Keesie), I also enjoy a number of hobbies that allow me to enter other realities, at least in the illusory sense.
I love magic (as in conjuring and prestigiditation)- I used to perform, but currently I am out of magic officially while I pursue my psychology studies. So - no clubs, no conventions, no gigs. I haven't, however, ever been able to get magic out my system, so I continue to dabble, and buy books and DVDs. I'll have comments to make about that as this blog progresses.
I also indulge in RPGs, another form of world entry (don't say escapism - I have nothing to escape). Currently my preferences there run to the indie scene, with games like "Spirit of the Century" and "Dogs in the Vineyard" being typical preferences. I'll have stuff to say about those things in due course as well.
I have a lot of other interests - they'll come up as time goes on...
All of this is just by way of an introduction, and I hope to focus on all sorts of things as I continue on. Still that will do for now. Before I go, let me just leave you with a book recommendation for this week: "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" edited by John Brockman.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Of late I've been reading a lot of other people's blogs. Some felt like filler. Others like the product of deep thinkers. Still others like like the results of a GIGO process. In all cases, though, it allowed me to glimpse at someone else's thinking, whether right or wrong, tasteful or distasteful. This mental voyeurism is somewhat interesting, particularly for someone like me, who, as a mature age student returned to university to study psychology. So here I am, ready to share my own thoughts to whoever is interested.
So what do I think about? Well, psychology for a start, and the nature of belief, and why people believe the things they do. I'm a skeptic by nature, an atheist, a materialist and by turns cynical and hopeful. I love science, but I'm not a scientist per se - still you'll find that I'm a greater admirer of Darwin and Dawkins than I am of religious dogma, though I try to respect people's right to believe as they will (as long as they extend to me the right not to believe).
My hobbies are eclectic. Apart from reading, watching TV, enjoying movies, spending time with my lady and my dog ( a beautiful Keesie), I also enjoy a number of hobbies that allow me to enter other realities, at least in the illusory sense.
I love magic (as in conjuring and prestigiditation)- I used to perform, but currently I am out of magic officially while I pursue my psychology studies. So - no clubs, no conventions, no gigs. I haven't, however, ever been able to get magic out my system, so I continue to dabble, and buy books and DVDs. I'll have comments to make about that as this blog progresses.
I also indulge in RPGs, another form of world entry (don't say escapism - I have nothing to escape). Currently my preferences there run to the indie scene, with games like "Spirit of the Century" and "Dogs in the Vineyard" being typical preferences. I'll have stuff to say about those things in due course as well.
I have a lot of other interests - they'll come up as time goes on...
All of this is just by way of an introduction, and I hope to focus on all sorts of things as I continue on. Still that will do for now. Before I go, let me just leave you with a book recommendation for this week: "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" edited by John Brockman.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
