Trash your intuition; it only deceives you

Before you read another word here, I’d like you to take a test. It takes only about a minute and a half and - trust me - it’s great fun, and you’ll learn a lot about yourself. Just watch the video below, and follow the instructions. So, how did you do? Did you spot the furry beast? Only about half of those who take the test notice the gorilla at all.  The others, being so focussed on the task assigned to them, were blind to the ‘gorilla in the room’. It’s what the scientists who devised the experiment call “ inattentional blindness ”. But what’s more surprising, those who missed it were in complete denial about their failure, and claimed the tapes had been switched. If you’re one of those who spotted it, you probably think of yourself as very perceptive. Good for you. Now, I’d like you to take a follow-up test: again, it’s only a minute and a half – and you’ll be surprised at the result. The ‘ invisible gorilla ’ experiment was first conceptualised in the late 1990s by cognitive psychologists Chris Chabris and Dan Simons . Since then, it’s become one of the most widely demonstrated and discussed psychological studies ever, and has implications in virtually every sphere of life. The experiment earned Chabris and Simons the Ig Nobel Prize (awarded for “achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think”), and is a dramatic illustration of “the illusion of attention” at work, which explains why we experience far less of our visual world than we think we do. [caption id=“attachment_17275” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The experiment also demonstrates other distorted beliefs that we hold about our minds that are not just wrong, but wrong in potentially dangerous ways. Image by AlexPro.”] [/caption] It’s the reason why, for instance, your friend “looks right through you” on the street and fails to acknowledge you. But don’t blame her; she was preoccupied and was the victim of “inattentional blindness”. The experiment also demonstrates other distorted beliefs that we hold about our minds that are not just wrong, but wrong in potentially dangerous ways.  And even when it’s proved that our beliefs and “intuitions” are flawed, we stubbornly refuse to acknowledge our failings. Chabris and Simons take forward their mind-bending argument in their book, The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us (Harper Collins India; 320 pages; Rs 399). In it, they make the point that virtually every realm of human behavior is touched by everyday illusions. And whereas an inability to spot a gorilla in a basketball court may not appear to have much downside risk, it is illustrative of the “illusions of the mind” (of which they highlight six), some of which have life-and-death implications. Literally. For instance, “inattentional blindness” may be the reason why “near-misses” involving aircraft happen, and why a radiologist peering at an X-ray for a broken bone may miss even a large tumour. It’s because we “look” but don’t “see”. But as Simons told me earlier this year , “the reason we fail to see unexpected things is because we’re so good at focussing our attention. We need to be able to focus attention without being distracted. Unfortunately, the distractions sometimes are things we might want to see. Second, and perhaps more important, the finding is counter-intuitive: we think we will notice those unexpected things. It’s that ‘intuition’ that we call the illusion of attention: we believe we automatically notice anything that’s in front of us.” Chabris and Simons list five other illusions of the mind. They are: The illusion of memory. We believe our memories to be more accurate and precise than they actually are. For instance, President George W. Bush publicly recalled having seen on TV the first plane hit the World Trade Centre on 9/11, but there was no video footage of the first crash until much later. On other occasions, he gave inconsistent answers about how he first heard of the 9/11 attacks, which in turn triggered conspiracy theories. But Bush wasn’t lying: he may have been the victim of a “ false flashbulb memory ” – to which all of us are susceptible. Likewise, Hillary Clinton, campaigning for President in 2008, claimed that she had to evade sniper fire when she visited Bosnia in 1996 as President Bill Clinton’s wife. But TV footage from 1996 ( video here ) showed her walking calmly upon arrival, with no trace of sniper fire. She too wasn’t lying; she was only a victim of the “illusion of memory”. It’s also the reason why film editors slip up on continuity sequences (as happened, famously, in Godfather and Pretty Woman – much to the amusement of amateur “continuity sleuths”. The illusion of confidence. It’s the reason why we overestimate our own qualities, particularly relative to other people; it’s also the reason why we interpret the confidence (or lack thereof) that other people express as a valid signal of their own abilities or the extent of their knowledge. In fact, as Charles Darwin observed, it is ignorance that “more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”. In a 1999 research titled “ Unskilled and Unaware of It ”, psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning of Cornell University conclude that those with a limited knowledge in an area reach mistaken conclusions and reach regrettable errors – and, worse, their incompetence robs them of their ability to realise how bad they are. Think about that and you’ll figure out why we see so much of mediocre talent on Indian Idol shows. The illusion of knowledge. It’s the reason  why we underestimate how long it will take to complete a project or how much it might cost to get something done. That’s because what seems simple and straightforward in our mind turns out to be far more complex during implementation. The illusion of cause. It’s the reason why we see patterns in randomness , where no pattern exists, or where we misperceive patterns where they do exist. Its also the reason why we make false connections between two unrelated events or hypotheses. The illusion of potential. It’s the illusion that leads us to think that vast reservoirs of untapped mental ability exist in our brains, just waiting to be accessed – if only we knew how. It’s also the reason why memory pills, as advertised by chess maestro Vishwanathan Anand , sell well; and why people believe in the Mozart effect – that listening to Mozart’s music makes you smarter . (The answer is ‘ no ’, it doesn’t) The larger point that Chabris and Simons make, with their illustration of these and other illusions of the mind, is that our snap decisions about people and things – based on something we call our ‘intuition’ – can be very wrong.  When we pick a team leader (or elect a politician) because s/he expresses the most confidence, we’re being influenced by the “illusion of confidence”; and when we see patterns where none exists and we jump to conclusions, we are vulnerable to the “illusion of cause and effect” . In the authors’ reckoning, even experts in specific areas of endeavour aren’t immune to the “illusion of knowledge”, as a result of which they end up overestimating their capabilities relative to others. The psychological precepts that Chabris and Simons introduce us to ought also to alert us to the “subliminal pseudoscience” that alter our understanding of reality. It is one compelling argument for why we should make a heap of our intuitions and trash them.