3 ms·

I started to think, "But, isn't it an oxymoron to suggest that something is more overt, if it distracts less..." when I realized, the true discovery in these te

I started to think, "But, isn't it an oxymoron to suggest that something is more overt, if it distracts less..." when I realized, the true discovery in these tests is just that we can't really judge what is overt, because that's based on context. Here is an example: You're driving down the freeway at 90mph. As you begin rounding a corner there is a giant red sign on the left that says, "You need a heart transplant!" in huge, reflective white writing, while on the right a deer's eyes glow in your headlights just as he begins to jump in front of you. Which is more "salient"? The deer is a mere pair of one inch eyes glowing in your headlights, while the billboard is seventy five feet of glowing red and white. Salience is based on context and perceived importance of a pattern, and that function cannot simply be overridden. Here's another (different kind of) example: You're driving down the freeway at 90mph, using Waze to track police locations and avoid tickets, when all of the sudden you see a lightning bolt a few yards in front of you... Now you're thinking about Waze (esp if you've used it), even though I mentioned there was a lightning bolt in your face.

dpflan 11y ago
The experiment used symbols with values attributed to them, so the diamond was the most valuable, followed by the red circle, followed by the green circle. This reward context meant that they were seeking these symbols, assessing their value and influence with regard to the goal: getting the diamond. In your example with the sign and deer, the goal is driving safely - the deer is a negative presence, something to avoid, the sign is a negative presence, something to avoid, which you are comparing using visible area. You've been trained in different ways regarding deer and billboards, and they behave differently - billboards don't move, deer can. The deer seems more salient, unless I really do need a heart transplant because perhaps the context of my future health - greater than duration of my car trip - is more valuable to me than my health during the car trip?
- mangeletti 11y ago
  My point is that the "values" attributed to them are not necessarily intrinsic in the eyes of the subjects of the experiment, regardless of whether they've been designed to be so (based on rewards, etc.).

dpflan 11y ago

The experiment used symbols with values attributed to them, so the diamond was the most valuable, followed by the red circle, followed by the green circle. This reward context meant that they were seeking these symbols, assessing their value and influence with regard to the goal: getting the diamond. In your example with the sign and deer, the goal is driving safely - the deer is a negative presence, something to avoid, the sign is a negative presence, something to avoid, which you are comparing using visible area. You've been trained in different ways regarding deer and billboards, and they behave differently - billboards don't move, deer can. The deer seems more salient, unless I really do need a heart transplant because perhaps the context of my future health - greater than duration of my car trip - is more valuable to me than my health during the car trip?

mangeletti 11y ago
My point is that the "values" attributed to them are not necessarily intrinsic in the eyes of the subjects of the experiment, regardless of whether they've been designed to be so (based on rewards, etc.).