3 ms·

A very interesting article, but I think your model of a mental frame which you define as the biased and limited way in which information is perceived or underst

A very interesting article, but I think your model of a mental frame which you define as the biased and limited way in which information is perceived or understood. is a bit malformed as information isn't really perceived, it is processed at a higher level than perception. Integrated sensation or Perception is the lowest level of awareness humans have with the least amount of variability among members of the species. There is not often much debate about perception, such as the building on a certain block is brown vs. green. Or the shape that something you see is a bicycle vs. a car. etc. Perception is in fact the most objective faculty we have - our direct connection to the real world. Now to say that our prior thinking can change our perception, I disagree. I think that people can actively evade perceptions they have by trying hard to ignore them, especially those perceptions that indicate that an idea held by the perceiver is incorrect in spite of the emotional need of the perceiver to continue to hold the incorrect idea. You say that As far as you can tell, that frame is reality. Clearly, a mental model is not reality, it is a model of reality. If your theory were true, we probably couldn't even participate on this forum as our differently modeled realities wouldn't allow a common language that so relies on commonalities of perception and concept formation. But I agree with your actual point that it is important to associate with people who share similar views about the world, people who have a similar sense of life. It can be very destructive to a person's view of what is possible in the world if everyone they spend time with is pessimistic and skeptical. When I was in Architecture school, all of my professors tried to convince us students that there were no new ideas, everything had been done. That nothing great was created/designed/invented by individuals, it was all thanks to groups. That the heroic in architecture was impossible and undesirable. That Wright's Falling water was banal, just a bunch of concrete plates stacked up above each other. All of this foolishness was washed away when I worked for Paul Rudolph in NYC who single handedly was designing some of the most beautiful and heroic buildings I had ever seen. The experience saved my world view of what is possible. So my advice is to find the very best in whatever your field, and learn from it. If you aren't able to do a startup on your own yet, find a startup that is the most innovative with the best ideas, and learn from them. Don't let the pessimists get you down, but stay grounded and realistic about the possibilities. Too much optimism can be a bad thing as well, but keep in mind that great things are achievable.

paul 20y ago
I'm using 'perception' in the broader sense -- a person may _perceive_ that startups are too risky, that politician X is dishonest, that God is acting in their life, etc. However, even simpler perceptions can be affected by our environment. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments "a high proportion (32%) conformed to the erroneous majority view of the others in the room when there were at least three confederates present, even when the majority said that two lines different in length by several inches were the same length"
- gibsonf1 20y ago
  I think the test you mention actually reinforces my case that perception is very uniform among most people. The test proved that group pressure can make someone who knows they are giving a wrong answer give a wrong answer, but that the perceptions were uniform (ie. the same person when confronted with the group pressure and went along with the wrong answer at one time, gave the right answer when the group pressure was removed.) If you were to change the word perception to understanding in your essay, I would agree with you except when you say: As far as you can tell, that frame is reality. This is a big philosophical statement that a person actually manufactures reality in their head, which clearly isn't the case. It would also handicap people with that view, if they were really to try to live it consistently (which is impossible), from creating products that customers value because they would rely on their own manufactured reality in their head instead of looking out at the world and inductively and objectively determining the values people were really looking for in the products being produced. I'm guessing you really don't hold this view though.
  - paul 20y ago
    The implication is not that people manufacture reality in their head, but rather that they model reality in their head (which is indisputable). You can try to improve your model, but it will always be just a model and subject to limitations and errors. This realization actually HELPS us create products for other people, because we understand that the reality inside their head is different from our own, and can attempt to model their reality as well.

paul 20y ago

I'm using 'perception' in the broader sense -- a person may _perceive_ that startups are too risky, that politician X is dishonest, that God is acting in their life, etc. However, even simpler perceptions can be affected by our environment. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments "a high proportion (32%) conformed to the erroneous majority view of the others in the room when there were at least three confederates present, even when the majority said that two lines different in length by several inches were the same length"

gibsonf1 20y ago
I think the test you mention actually reinforces my case that perception is very uniform among most people. The test proved that group pressure can make someone who knows they are giving a wrong answer give a wrong answer, but that the perceptions were uniform (ie. the same person when confronted with the group pressure and went along with the wrong answer at one time, gave the right answer when the group pressure was removed.) If you were to change the word perception to understanding in your essay, I would agree with you except when you say: As far as you can tell, that frame is reality. This is a big philosophical statement that a person actually manufactures reality in their head, which clearly isn't the case. It would also handicap people with that view, if they were really to try to live it consistently (which is impossible), from creating products that customers value because they would rely on their own manufactured reality in their head instead of looking out at the world and inductively and objectively determining the values people were really looking for in the products being produced. I'm guessing you really don't hold this view though.
- paul 20y ago
  The implication is not that people manufacture reality in their head, but rather that they model reality in their head (which is indisputable). You can try to improve your model, but it will always be just a model and subject to limitations and errors. This realization actually HELPS us create products for other people, because we understand that the reality inside their head is different from our own, and can attempt to model their reality as well.