4 ms·

See also: "Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio" — http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf

by judofyr 15y ago

rytis 15y ago
just one comment on that paper. "the most aesthetically pleasing rectangle" experiment I think is flawed. when you present someone with 4 figures it is easier to unconsciously pick the actually "most pleasing" because your brain is ok with validating all four for "aesthetics coefficient" so to say. when you're presented with some 48 figures, you simply overload your brain and it fails to evaluate aesthetics of each rectangle, sort and pick the highest score. so in my opinion that experiment is flawed. you brain can only operate on a limited set of objects especially when evaluating and comparing qualities. (7+-3 or thereabouts). pick any book about brain/psychology - it's there.
- mkup 15y ago
  a link to support your argument on Miller's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_...
  - ashishgandhi 15y ago
    Can't really appreciate enough people help out others "validate" what most of us feel in our guts.
    - bigfudge 15y ago
      You might also like Barry Schwartz' work on choice overload. His book is nice, but the TED talk captures most of it too: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...
tripzilch 15y ago
Yup. I'll check the PDF, thanks. Also see: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue22/features/golden/index http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue22/features/golden/ind... People do seem to like ratios of small integers, though. Which is why the supposed aesthetic elegance of 1.618 ((1+sqrt(5))/2) is most probably within statistical significance of 1.5 (3/2) or 1.666 (5/3), it's impossible to test whether people don't just enjoy ratios of small integers instead of the irrational number Phi.

See also: "Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio" — http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf

by judofyr 15y ago

See also: "Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio" — http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf

rytis 15y ago

just one comment on that paper. "the most aesthetically pleasing rectangle" experiment I think is flawed. when you present someone with 4 figures it is easier to unconsciously pick the actually "most pleasing" because your brain is ok with validating all four for "aesthetics coefficient" so to say. when you're presented with some 48 figures, you simply overload your brain and it fails to evaluate aesthetics of each rectangle, sort and pick the highest score. so in my opinion that experiment is flawed. you brain can only operate on a limited set of objects especially when evaluating and comparing qualities. (7+-3 or thereabouts). pick any book about brain/psychology - it's there.

mkup 15y ago
a link to support your argument on Miller's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_...
- ashishgandhi 15y ago
  Can't really appreciate enough people help out others "validate" what most of us feel in our guts.
  - bigfudge 15y ago
    You might also like Barry Schwartz' work on choice overload. His book is nice, but the TED talk captures most of it too: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...

tripzilch 15y ago

Yup. I'll check the PDF, thanks. Also see: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue22/features/golden/index http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue22/features/golden/ind... People do seem to like ratios of small integers, though. Which is why the supposed aesthetic elegance of 1.618 ((1+sqrt(5))/2) is most probably within statistical significance of 1.5 (3/2) or 1.666 (5/3), it's impossible to test whether people don't just enjoy ratios of small integers instead of the irrational number Phi.