Perception philosophy
The vagaries of perception are nothing short of awe-inspiring.
First, you have the moot question I’ll call “symbol unity”. Our eyes function differently – some people are a little color-blind in very peculiar ways, and yet we are trained to associate a uniform description to a particular color. If I were to see what you see, I might call it “mud” instead of “red”, but because someone pointed to Color X when we were young and said “Red!”, we both call it that. Different perception, same name… That we do not see the same thing is purely academic.
Then you’ve got the minor or major conceptual differences we’ve built up over our entire lives. I see a fire truck go down the street, and maybe I remember the time when they came to my elementary school, and they let me play on it, and I feel good, trusting feelings, while you remember that your puppy died in a fire, the firemen broke down your door and scared you, and that your home was ruined by the water. Same truck, same street, but wildly divergent reactions.
That doesn’t even consider differences in expressed symbolism, where the ASL sign for fire truck may imply different things than the english or french word or mandarin word.
We spend the better part of our lives struggling with the intersection of these things – A person experiences something, or expresses something, or we act, and then devote ourselves to explaining “what we/they really mean”. Artists play with this confusion, expressing themselves in ways that are intentionally open to differing opinions, while scholars and scientists use languages designed to be as uniformly perceived as possible (with varying success).
It is impossible to be entirely in accord with another person, even a sibling; even twins argue. With different frames of reference comes divergent answers, and then we must decide how much of our time we will spend to clear it up. Some people even take advantage of this, relying on the misperceptions of others to further their personal goals and pleasures. Sometimes people lay bait for each other, teasing at their true (hurtful) perception until they’re called on it, wherein they can leap back to the refuge of relative meanings. Frankly, they’re both cheap ways of being deceptive without taking the moral ‘hit’, but I digress.
I find myself constantly, constantly working to align my perception with that of others, and constantly trying to bring theirs in alignment with mine. I generally don’t leave “good enough” alone, I’ll use four sentences when one would suffice, and I probe and probe and probe until I think I understand with crystal clarity what someone means.
Of course, miscommunication after all of that probing can still be overwhelming. Even if you speak the exact same language (Red is red… right?), you may be thinking of a different concept entirely. (Love is love … right?) In fact, I’ve recently come to understand that the differences of opinion left unsaid and unexplored are often more spectacular than the surface implies.
I could grieve over the (sometimes startling) changes these perception incongruities wreak upon our lives, but I’m still shocked that we can make sense of each other at all. And better than that, the feeling of speaking to someone about something where you are suddenly of accord… it’s a CLANG!, a buzz, a sense of joy and accomplishment.
Maybe it’s better for us all that it isn’t so damned easy to understand each other.
(You’ve read this far, you might as well comment with your own story, thought, disagreement, or whatever this may inspire.)
A lot of arguments could be deminished if people would just take the time to look at something from the other person’s point of view. Not that arguing is always wrong… in many cases, the debate teaches us something valuable. But many arguments are based on the simple concept of two individuals having completely different experiences with subject “X” and not taking the time to look outside of what is familiar to them to see what the experience/reasoning is of the opposing person.
So yeah, red is red for as long as you don’t look for it to be a different color. Or concept. Or experience.
In recent years, I’ve tried more and more to put myself in other people’s positions during even casual conversations in hopes of understanding them more… why they think the way they think, why they say what they say, and in some cases, why they refuse to believe that there is anything else in existance other than what they, themselves, say exists. In the end it either makes me connect to them better and more positively, or it shows me that I don’t need to invest any further into that relationship because it won’t be reciprocated.
That seems right to me, though I’d point out that the problem with the “red” experiment is that NEITHER of us know that it is different for the other – in fact, barring a detailed examination of the eyes (and, perhaps, brain), there’s really no way to know for sure unless the difference is so blatant that one person can see something the other cannot.
Of course, it’s just an example.
I’d totally agree that in order to understand someone, you have to be willing to see their point of view. Otherwise you’re just fitting their square peg into your round hole.
There are always going to be times where it is, for lack of a better phrase or term, the blind leading the blind as far as not being able to know or see or experience what the other knows or sees or experience. But the important thing is that you acknowledge that there is that difference.
Square pegs and round holes. Geez. You’re pretty kinky today.
I’m always kinky. Though if you run across a square peg, let me know, they’ll be famous!
I’m always kinky. Though if you run across a square peg, let me know, they’ll be famous!
There are always going to be times where it is, for lack of a better phrase or term, the blind leading the blind as far as not being able to know or see or experience what the other knows or sees or experience. But the important thing is that you acknowledge that there is that difference.
Square pegs and round holes. Geez. You’re pretty kinky today.
That seems right to me, though I’d point out that the problem with the “red” experiment is that NEITHER of us know that it is different for the other – in fact, barring a detailed examination of the eyes (and, perhaps, brain), there’s really no way to know for sure unless the difference is so blatant that one person can see something the other cannot.
Of course, it’s just an example.
I’d totally agree that in order to understand someone, you have to be willing to see their point of view. Otherwise you’re just fitting their square peg into your round hole.
A lot of arguments could be deminished if people would just take the time to look at something from the other person’s point of view. Not that arguing is always wrong… in many cases, the debate teaches us something valuable. But many arguments are based on the simple concept of two individuals having completely different experiences with subject “X” and not taking the time to look outside of what is familiar to them to see what the experience/reasoning is of the opposing person.
So yeah, red is red for as long as you don’t look for it to be a different color. Or concept. Or experience.
In recent years, I’ve tried more and more to put myself in other people’s positions during even casual conversations in hopes of understanding them more… why they think the way they think, why they say what they say, and in some cases, why they refuse to believe that there is anything else in existance other than what they, themselves, say exists. In the end it either makes me connect to them better and more positively, or it shows me that I don’t need to invest any further into that relationship because it won’t be reciprocated.
Ultimately, words are insufficient to communicate exactly what anther person is thinking. As you say, you have to take into account each and every impactful experience into one person’s definition of “fire truck.”
No number of sentences can accurately describe how scared you were when your house burned down, and how you get that weird mix of apprehension and gratitude when you hear those sirens. And what makes it much harder is abandoning your own mindset (maybe when you see a fire truck you think of that sexy lady fireman from that TV show when you were young, or something) to understand that of another.
It’s only through multiple shared experiences that we really get a sense of being “close” to one another, or being in accord. That’s why old friends recall the same stories time after time – it’s a sense of “this was a time when we perceived things the same way, and I felt close to you.” Beyond that, I think our individual experiences and frames of reference constantly push us farther and farther from truly being able to share consciousness and understanding with one another.
You have some great things to say, here. I am a huge fan of the shared experience. For instance, though I love to travel, and have explored a number of cities on my own, I was ecstatic to find out that a few friends of mine would be nearby on my next trip.
The experience is far more meaningful when I can compare and contrast it with that of others.
It’s funny – when I think of this I think of ILB in particular. While I didn’t participate directly in the proceedings, in a way I felt like I got to know people and shared the experience with them, just by way of enjoying it myself and reading their reactions to it.
Tangent: enjoyment (and, by association, things like fascination and frustration) is derived from an experience or narrative that is told in a way that the audience can relate to. By making the experience something accessible and understandable to our frames of reference, our sense of isolation and individuality is reduced, and we enjoy that closeness.
And even things like “red” are a shared experience. As children we are taught what red is, what green and round and cat and dog all mean, and we share that meaning with each other through language. A child points at red and identifies it, and derives enjoyment through a parent’s confirmation that it is, in fact, red.
All quite true. The difference, in such contexts, really is academic, and it’s better left that way.
All quite true. The difference, in such contexts, really is academic, and it’s better left that way.
All quite true. The difference in perception, in such contexts, really is academic, and it’s better left that way.
And it points to something else I’ve had to learn – sometimes “sufficient” really is just that. In other words, sometimes it’s best to just let a rudimentary or surface understanding lie, when getting to the bottom of it is both less than fruitful/necessary and likely to lead to discord.
All quite true. The difference in perception, in such contexts, really is academic, and it’s better left that way.
And it points to something else I’ve had to learn – sometimes “sufficient” really is just that. In other words, sometimes it’s best to just let a rudimentary or surface understanding lie, when getting to the bottom of it is both less than fruitful/necessary and likely to lead to discord.
It’s funny – when I think of this I think of ILB in particular. While I didn’t participate directly in the proceedings, in a way I felt like I got to know people and shared the experience with them, just by way of enjoying it myself and reading their reactions to it.
Tangent: enjoyment (and, by association, things like fascination and frustration) is derived from an experience or narrative that is told in a way that the audience can relate to. By making the experience something accessible and understandable to our frames of reference, our sense of isolation and individuality is reduced, and we enjoy that closeness.
And even things like “red” are a shared experience. As children we are taught what red is, what green and round and cat and dog all mean, and we share that meaning with each other through language. A child points at red and identifies it, and derives enjoyment through a parent’s confirmation that it is, in fact, red.
You have some great things to say, here. I am a huge fan of the shared experience. For instance, though I love to travel, and have explored a number of cities on my own, I was ecstatic to find out that a few friends of mine would be nearby on my next trip.
The experience is far more meaningful when I can compare and contrast it with that of others.
Ultimately, words are insufficient to communicate exactly what anther person is thinking. As you say, you have to take into account each and every impactful experience into one person’s definition of “fire truck.”
No number of sentences can accurately describe how scared you were when your house burned down, and how you get that weird mix of apprehension and gratitude when you hear those sirens. And what makes it much harder is abandoning your own mindset (maybe when you see a fire truck you think of that sexy lady fireman from that TV show when you were young, or something) to understand that of another.
It’s only through multiple shared experiences that we really get a sense of being “close” to one another, or being in accord. That’s why old friends recall the same stories time after time – it’s a sense of “this was a time when we perceived things the same way, and I felt close to you.” Beyond that, I think our individual experiences and frames of reference constantly push us farther and farther from truly being able to share consciousness and understanding with one another.
Very thought provoking – why must you do this while I am at work? ;p I have learned to validate (in my mind or aloud) the other person’s opinions and let them know that, if we disagree, it doesn’t make them wrong, we don’t have to agree. I am all for understanding and non-agreement, as long as the other person in the discussion is on the same level with me. It doesn’t really work when talking with someone trying to convince you.
BTW, when are you coming to MD to visit, dammit? :)
I picked up a habit from when I was doing tech support, where I’d say “So what you’re saying is”, and then I’d paraphrase it in an attempt to get it clear. Alas, people sometimes find that infuriating in conversation. *grins and shrugs* It’s not intentional anymore.
I agree, that it is extremely difficult to get on the same level of a discussion with a person who is entirely focused on convincing you and not at all prepared to understand your own point of view.
In fact, I’ve had some hilarious (to me) experiences with people who have reverse-sold me. I came into the discussion feeling easy-to-convert, but they were so bad at seeing my perspective well enough to understand where I was going, I ended up solid in the other direction.
In many communication courses, they teach you to repeat back what you heard the other person say before adding your own thoughts. This, theoretically, minimizes misunderstandings; if you heard differently they can catch you when you first paraphrase it back, rather than later after 3 or 4 more assumptions got made on the first error.
I find myself sometimes getting frustrated in serious discussions if I think we spend way too long in or get too caught up in meta-communication, where we’re talking about talking. It’s useful work, mind you, I just have found that it can also be distracting from a larger topic at times.
In many communication courses, they teach you to repeat back what you heard the other person say before adding your own thoughts. This, theoretically, minimizes misunderstandings; if you heard differently they can catch you when you first paraphrase it back, rather than later after 3 or 4 more assumptions got made on the first error.
I find myself sometimes getting frustrated in serious discussions if I think we spend way too long in or get too caught up in meta-communication, where we’re talking about talking. It’s useful work, mind you, I just have found that it can also be distracting from a larger topic at times.
I picked up a habit from when I was doing tech support, where I’d say “So what you’re saying is”, and then I’d paraphrase it in an attempt to get it clear. Alas, people sometimes find that infuriating in conversation. *grins and shrugs* It’s not intentional anymore.
I agree, that it is extremely difficult to get on the same level of a discussion with a person who is entirely focused on convincing you and not at all prepared to understand your own point of view.
In fact, I’ve had some hilarious (to me) experiences with people who have reverse-sold me. I came into the discussion feeling easy-to-convert, but they were so bad at seeing my perspective well enough to understand where I was going, I ended up solid in the other direction.
And I don’t know, all of my planned travels right now are for work, so they’re wherever they take me! :)
And I don’t know, all of my planned travels right now are for work, so they’re wherever they take me! :)
Very thought provoking – why must you do this while I am at work? ;p I have learned to validate (in my mind or aloud) the other person’s opinions and let them know that, if we disagree, it doesn’t make them wrong, we don’t have to agree. I am all for understanding and non-agreement, as long as the other person in the discussion is on the same level with me. It doesn’t really work when talking with someone trying to convince you.
BTW, when are you coming to MD to visit, dammit? :)
But how do you feeeel about it? Tell me about your mother.
That was taken yesterday, outside of my office. I feel ambivalent, as it’s not the first time a rooftop fire has evacuated my office building. I did have a rather lovely free day off yesterday though!
That was taken yesterday, outside of my office. I feel ambivalent, as it’s not the first time a rooftop fire has evacuated my office building. I did have a rather lovely free day off yesterday though!
But how do you feeeel about it? Tell me about your mother.
In all seriousness, what if one were in a he said/she said situation, wherein one has to take person a’s perspective and compare and contrast it to person b’s perspective in order to gain a clearer insight into a certain situation?
Unless you’re directly involved, you don’t. You can give person A) advice based on what they perceive and the same with B), but he said/she saids can’t be resolved with “clearer insight” by a third party. IMO, anyway.
You can sympathize, but don’t get involved. Movies are made about that crap, y’know?
You have a valid point. What if it were a situation wherein you may not be involved, but it directly affects you?
I’d clock them both upside the head.
Just kidding.
I guess that would depend. If I were roomies, for instance, with one of them, I’d have to tell they were going to have to understand that having a reasonably happy “home life” had to take preference over anyone’s desire for me to mete out justice.
What impact is there from your own thoughts on the matter, in this instance? If zero, I’d do my best to let them hash it out on their own.
Most people really hate it when other people get involved, and there’s too much of a chance to lose both friendships.
I’d clock them both upside the head.
Just kidding.
I guess that would depend. If I were roomies, for instance, with one of them, I’d have to tell they were going to have to understand that having a reasonably happy “home life” had to take preference over anyone’s desire for me to mete out justice.
What impact is there from your own thoughts on the matter, in this instance? If zero, I’d do my best to let them hash it out on their own.
Most people really hate it when other people get involved, and there’s too much of a chance to lose both friendships.
You have a valid point. What if it were a situation wherein you may not be involved, but it directly affects you?
Unless you’re directly involved, you don’t. You can give person A) advice based on what they perceive and the same with B), but he said/she saids can’t be resolved with “clearer insight” by a third party. IMO, anyway.
You can sympathize, but don’t get involved. Movies are made about that crap, y’know?
In all seriousness, what if one were in a he said/she said situation, wherein one has to take person a’s perspective and compare and contrast it to person b’s perspective in order to gain a clearer insight into a certain situation?
There is so much I can say in response to this, so I will try to limit myself to a reasonable quantity of text.
Your own thoughts are similar to those of philosphers past. “Don’t judge till you’ve walked a mile in their shoes”. Even when two people hear the same words, they perceive them differently because, just as you’ve said, they have distinct frames of reference. Thus an argument can occur, even over established facts.
One of the challenges for the Voyager spacecraft missions (V’Ger!) was to deevlop a form of notation/communication that could be universally understood. Sounds easy, but whent he assigned scientists approached the problem, they clashed! Not only did they disagree on how things woul dbe interpreted, they found it very difficult to decide on information that could act as an Earthly “Rosetta Stone”. I don’t remember what was decided, but I did hear of ideas such as universal constants like atomic information for Hydrogen, the fibonacci sequence, and pi. Google could tell you, I bet.
For my own life, one of my greatest personal learning experiences was in college. The idea that by understanding other people’s perspectives would allow me to understand why they disagreed with me; and thereby convey a different view. At it’s core is my belief that, excepting psychological illness, NO ONE wants to be a bad person. In their core, no one truly wants to cause harm, be mean, angry, violent, lonely, or unhappy. No one wants their house blown up, or the environment ruined, or for poverty to exist. Negative actions, emotions, and states of being are the result of imperfect situations. We try to react as best we can, given the imperfect knowledge we have; our approaches differ, but our core, basic goals, do not. Sometimes we do well; many times we do not. (very Buddhist statement:) When we understand the sources of suffering, only then can we learn how to escape suffering.
Never stop learning. Never stop thinking. Never stop trying to understand why other people think what they do. You or I may not change the world this way, but maybe we can help our friends and family, at least in small ways. And that’s a good thing.
There is so much I can say in response to this, so I will try to limit myself to a reasonable quantity of text.
Your own thoughts are similar to those of philosphers past. “Don’t judge till you’ve walked a mile in their shoes”. Even when two people hear the same words, they perceive them differently because, just as you’ve said, they have distinct frames of reference. Thus an argument can occur, even over established facts.
One of the challenges for the Voyager spacecraft missions (V’Ger!) was to deevlop a form of notation/communication that could be universally understood. Sounds easy, but whent he assigned scientists approached the problem, they clashed! Not only did they disagree on how things woul dbe interpreted, they found it very difficult to decide on information that could act as an Earthly “Rosetta Stone”. I don’t remember what was decided, but I did hear of ideas such as universal constants like atomic information for Hydrogen, the fibonacci sequence, and pi. Google could tell you, I bet.
For my own life, one of my greatest personal learning experiences was in college. The idea that by understanding other people’s perspectives would allow me to understand why they disagreed with me; and thereby convey a different view. At it’s core is my belief that, excepting psychological illness, NO ONE wants to be a bad person. In their core, no one truly wants to cause harm, be mean, angry, violent, lonely, or unhappy. No one wants their house blown up, or the environment ruined, or for poverty to exist. Negative actions, emotions, and states of being are the result of imperfect situations. We try to react as best we can, given the imperfect knowledge we have; our approaches differ, but our core, basic goals, do not. Sometimes we do well; many times we do not. (very Buddhist statement:) When we understand the sources of suffering, only then can we learn how to escape suffering.
Never stop learning. Never stop thinking. Never stop trying to understand why other people think what they do. You or I may not change the world this way, but maybe we can help our friends and family, at least in small ways. And that’s a good thing.
Chiming in a day late here…
There’s a “personal growth” course that teaches a concept called “The Four Levels of Reality”. It has really helped me a lot when trying to understand others. Or at least helps me keep in mind how easy it is to misunderstand others. To give you the quick basics, (as I understand them based on my own perceptions…) according to this concept there are four levels of reality: Physical, Psychological/Emotional, Mythical, and Essential.
Physical Reality: What IS. What’s happening. Events, people, and actions before we try to interpret the motives and intentions behind them. For instance, someone frowning. The physical reality of the frown before we try to figure out what the frown means or the reason behind it.
Psychological/Emotional Reality: Our reactions to physical reality based on our past experiences and the way they color our feelings toward things. For instance, in the past, if one had a relationship with someone who frowned at them right before going on a long rant about their short comings and mistakes they were making in the relationship. This may or may not be the motivation behind the physical reality of the frown, but this might be our interpretation of that frown.
Mythical Reality: This is the story we tell to ourselves and possibly others to explain the Physical Reality based on our own Psychological/Emotional Reality, or our reaction to it. “She is frowning at me because I have really screwed up and said or done something wrong.”
Essential Reality: The true reason for the frown. The person is frowning because her back hurts. Essence is the place before interpretation, personal relevance, judgment, and fact. The essence can be a quality. So the Essential Reality here is quite simply, “pain”.
You can see from the examples how easy it is to perceive something completely differently from the essential reality behind it. Then you can take it a step further. Instead of something simple and basic like a frown because of pain, two people trying to understand each other’s emotions or opinions or ideas. Yikes. It truly amazes me people are ever able to understand one another at all! I guess that’s why it’s such a beautiful thing when it happens.
Chiming in a day late here…
There’s a “personal growth” course that teaches a concept called “The Four Levels of Reality”. It has really helped me a lot when trying to understand others. Or at least helps me keep in mind how easy it is to misunderstand others. To give you the quick basics, (as I understand them based on my own perceptions…) according to this concept there are four levels of reality: Physical, Psychological/Emotional, Mythical, and Essential.
Physical Reality: What IS. What’s happening. Events, people, and actions before we try to interpret the motives and intentions behind them. For instance, someone frowning. The physical reality of the frown before we try to figure out what the frown means or the reason behind it.
Psychological/Emotional Reality: Our reactions to physical reality based on our past experiences and the way they color our feelings toward things. For instance, in the past, if one had a relationship with someone who frowned at them right before going on a long rant about their short comings and mistakes they were making in the relationship. This may or may not be the motivation behind the physical reality of the frown, but this might be our interpretation of that frown.
Mythical Reality: This is the story we tell to ourselves and possibly others to explain the Physical Reality based on our own Psychological/Emotional Reality, or our reaction to it. “She is frowning at me because I have really screwed up and said or done something wrong.”
Essential Reality: The true reason for the frown. The person is frowning because her back hurts. Essence is the place before interpretation, personal relevance, judgment, and fact. The essence can be a quality. So the Essential Reality here is quite simply, “pain”.
You can see from the examples how easy it is to perceive something completely differently from the essential reality behind it. Then you can take it a step further. Instead of something simple and basic like a frown because of pain, two people trying to understand each other’s emotions or opinions or ideas. Yikes. It truly amazes me people are ever able to understand one another at all! I guess that’s why it’s such a beautiful thing when it happens.