3 ms·

I wonder how is the lack of this effect connected to autism.

0815test 8y ago
I wonder about this as well. That example on Wikipedia had no effect on me. On the other hand could it be the advertising industry using it too much and some people getting "anesthetized" to it? I don't think it's autism for me because generally I'm hyper aware of people's emotions.
- petercooper 8y ago
  I came to the comments specifically to make a similar point and was glad to see people already addressing it. I (diagnosed ASD) watched the video on Wikipedia and thought it was weird he had the same neutral expression each time.
  - heyjudy 8y ago
    There's his expression in clip A, and the following subject in clip B. The viewer's impression of his social calibration (his appropriateness) in A changes after they see B. A is a neutral expression. B is a somber event where restraint is required: A is appropriate. B is a happy event or perhaps a close family member: A then B implies he's cold, underwhelmed or disapproving. B is some random, inanimate object: B holds no new social meaning of A, unless B is symbolic or a plot Macguffin. It's the same A, but it's the clip B following it that rewrites socioemotional history of the viewer. At a higher level of abstraction, it and other socioemotional back-rationalizations imply most people allow the future to rewrite their impression of the past, making the past not entirely cast in stone. People can easily turn on each other and then forget about it simply because they choose to rewrite history in their minds, twice.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Like commercials, I don't think it works when you watch with suspicion. So you cannot watch this movie and draw conclusions from it because you're focussed on the context of the Kuleshov effect (which also makes it more difficult to replicate). Even movies are different when you watch them critically. (FWIW, I have ASD as well, and for me the expressions on his face are meaningless.)
    - sierdolij 8y ago
      I'm sorry that you believe that with such black-and-white conviction. IMO, it's usually the people who believe they are in more-or-less total control of both their conscious mind and their unconscious mind with respect to biases, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs, and are "totally unmoved" by products of adverting, propaganda, political messages, news and other PR, are, usually the ones most swayed by them... a form of self-delusion. Anecdotally, let's take my father, who's on the spectrum: a radicalized Fox News, flag-waving, Murica-hypernationalist, xenophoic, racist, bigot, InfoWars conspiracy theory wingnut who says news, advertising and other sorts of political messaging "doesn't affect his views, opinions or actions at all." I beg to differ. 0. How then can he reliably know anything for certain about the world, since he doesn't read nonfiction (i.e., reliable sources and accounts of history), interact civilly with others to understand/recognize their point-of-view or seek out reliable sources from other avenues? 2. How does one make consumer choices that aren't merely guessing, appearance-based or relying on manufactured popularity by ad-buys? 3. How does one know why and how they have the preferences they do and if they notice how, when and why any of them changed? 4. How does one "control" the subconscious if it's explicitly out of one's conscious abilities? How does one even "control" their conscious mind.. do they have another mind? And what "controls" that? 5. If advertising is so "ineffective on (him)," why when is it so demonstrably profitable? Is he the exception to the Dunning-Kruger effect? Perhaps most readers can now see why I don't argue or interact much with my father: It's unreasonable to debate an unreasonable person. Corollary: It's silly to debate an unreasonable person who lacks mostly true honest and accurate self-perception. Actually asking him any of the aforementioned questions would result in some form of BS: either anger or cognitive dissonant evasions/rationalizations.
    - sierdolij 8y ago
      Sorry, I meant to word the first sentence differently. I meant to say: "I'm sorry that you seem to believe that in what comes across as an absolute or very certain manner (maybe I'm wrong)."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- benschulz 8y ago
  Apparently the study could be replicated (with a neutral expression as shown in the example). Given that, I think it's unlikely that anyone is unaffected. I have two hypotheses: a) It may be a kind of hindsight bias. You watched the video in the context of an article on the Kuleshov effect and knew it was the same neutral expression each time. b) You cannot gage the mood of the embedded scene and thus cannot transfer it onto the encasing scene. The end result is that you are not affected in this instance. But it would not be because of some immunity to the Kuleshov effect itself.
- nzb 8y ago
  I don't have autism (or at least I'm not diagnosed) and none of the faces evoked any effect on me. But maybe it is because I'm fixated on the faces and not on the bigger picture.
scardine 8y ago
In a neurotypical person the "GPU" of the brain is used for face and body language recognition. I like to think the "GPU" is used for other things when you fit the AS - it seems logical that when using different circuitry for the task you will hit different illusions (different biases in the algorithm).
heyjudy 8y ago
It's difficult to say precisely. Someone with classic autism most likely wouldn't be able to interpret the implications of Hitchcock edit sequences because it would require Theory of Mind and social inference. Aspergers would likely have a better chance, but it might not be innately, immediately obvious to them.
lupire 8y ago
A variant of this is used in an autism test: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6577486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6577486 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind-behind-the-eyes https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind... Autism's partial face-blindness may include an inability to learn prejudices about the emotional content of faces.

I wonder about this as well. That example on Wikipedia had no effect on me. On the other hand could it be the advertising industry using it too much and some people getting "anesthetized" to it? I don't think it's autism for me because generally I'm hyper aware of people's emotions.

petercooper 8y ago
I came to the comments specifically to make a similar point and was glad to see people already addressing it. I (diagnosed ASD) watched the video on Wikipedia and thought it was weird he had the same neutral expression each time.
- heyjudy 8y ago
  There's his expression in clip A, and the following subject in clip B. The viewer's impression of his social calibration (his appropriateness) in A changes after they see B. A is a neutral expression. B is a somber event where restraint is required: A is appropriate. B is a happy event or perhaps a close family member: A then B implies he's cold, underwhelmed or disapproving. B is some random, inanimate object: B holds no new social meaning of A, unless B is symbolic or a plot Macguffin. It's the same A, but it's the clip B following it that rewrites socioemotional history of the viewer. At a higher level of abstraction, it and other socioemotional back-rationalizations imply most people allow the future to rewrite their impression of the past, making the past not entirely cast in stone. People can easily turn on each other and then forget about it simply because they choose to rewrite history in their minds, twice.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Like commercials, I don't think it works when you watch with suspicion. So you cannot watch this movie and draw conclusions from it because you're focussed on the context of the Kuleshov effect (which also makes it more difficult to replicate). Even movies are different when you watch them critically. (FWIW, I have ASD as well, and for me the expressions on his face are meaningless.)
  - sierdolij 8y ago
    I'm sorry that you believe that with such black-and-white conviction. IMO, it's usually the people who believe they are in more-or-less total control of both their conscious mind and their unconscious mind with respect to biases, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs, and are "totally unmoved" by products of adverting, propaganda, political messages, news and other PR, are, usually the ones most swayed by them... a form of self-delusion. Anecdotally, let's take my father, who's on the spectrum: a radicalized Fox News, flag-waving, Murica-hypernationalist, xenophoic, racist, bigot, InfoWars conspiracy theory wingnut who says news, advertising and other sorts of political messaging "doesn't affect his views, opinions or actions at all." I beg to differ. 0. How then can he reliably know anything for certain about the world, since he doesn't read nonfiction (i.e., reliable sources and accounts of history), interact civilly with others to understand/recognize their point-of-view or seek out reliable sources from other avenues? 2. How does one make consumer choices that aren't merely guessing, appearance-based or relying on manufactured popularity by ad-buys? 3. How does one know why and how they have the preferences they do and if they notice how, when and why any of them changed? 4. How does one "control" the subconscious if it's explicitly out of one's conscious abilities? How does one even "control" their conscious mind.. do they have another mind? And what "controls" that? 5. If advertising is so "ineffective on (him)," why when is it so demonstrably profitable? Is he the exception to the Dunning-Kruger effect? Perhaps most readers can now see why I don't argue or interact much with my father: It's unreasonable to debate an unreasonable person. Corollary: It's silly to debate an unreasonable person who lacks mostly true honest and accurate self-perception. Actually asking him any of the aforementioned questions would result in some form of BS: either anger or cognitive dissonant evasions/rationalizations.
  - sierdolij 8y ago
    Sorry, I meant to word the first sentence differently. I meant to say: "I'm sorry that you seem to believe that in what comes across as an absolute or very certain manner (maybe I'm wrong)."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
benschulz 8y ago
Apparently the study could be replicated (with a neutral expression as shown in the example). Given that, I think it's unlikely that anyone is unaffected. I have two hypotheses: a) It may be a kind of hindsight bias. You watched the video in the context of an article on the Kuleshov effect and knew it was the same neutral expression each time. b) You cannot gage the mood of the embedded scene and thus cannot transfer it onto the encasing scene. The end result is that you are not affected in this instance. But it would not be because of some immunity to the Kuleshov effect itself.
nzb 8y ago
I don't have autism (or at least I'm not diagnosed) and none of the faces evoked any effect on me. But maybe it is because I'm fixated on the faces and not on the bigger picture.

scardine 8y ago

In a neurotypical person the "GPU" of the brain is used for face and body language recognition. I like to think the "GPU" is used for other things when you fit the AS - it seems logical that when using different circuitry for the task you will hit different illusions (different biases in the algorithm).

heyjudy 8y ago

It's difficult to say precisely. Someone with classic autism most likely wouldn't be able to interpret the implications of Hitchcock edit sequences because it would require Theory of Mind and social inference. Aspergers would likely have a better chance, but it might not be innately, immediately obvious to them.

lupire 8y ago

A variant of this is used in an autism test: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6577486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6577486 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind-behind-the-eyes https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind... Autism's partial face-blindness may include an inability to learn prejudices about the emotional content of faces.