Reality: Is made of perceptions

     There were five blind people who were led to an elephant. One person stood by the ear. Another stood by the trunk. One stood by the leg. Yet another was by the tail. The final one was next to the body of the elephant. What were their perceptions of the elephant?

     How would that change if the blind people moved around? What if one felt the tail and a leg, and another a leg and the body? They would have some overlap but would still perceive a different world for the elephant.

     Let’s let those people loose — let them move all around the elephant. They now should have the same amount to be able to feel. Do they have a complete picture? Well, we know they are blind so they will not know the color. They can only feel the surface, so they do not know what is beneath the surface. Even if they could feel beneath, they cannot necessarily understand what they are feeling or the interactions between the various things that they feel.

     What would happen if someone was deliberately trying to fool, or confuse, them? Perhaps they wrap one leg with scratchy sandpaper and another leg with silk. Would this change their perception of the elephant?

     Once upon time there was a mischievous god. They decided to create some discord. There were two rice fields separated by a ridge upon which people could walk without disturbing the plants. The god put on a big hat — blue on the left side and red on the right side. Walking along the ridge, people in the field on the right side saw a person in a red hat. People in the left rice field saw a person in a blue hat. Reaching the end of the ridge, the god turned around — making sure that his hat turned on his head as he moved. Now the hat had the red side on the left and blue on the right — but, since they were walking the opposite direction the same people in the fields saw the same color on the hat that was seen before.

     At the end of the day, the workers all sat down in the communal dining room and, not having a lot of different things to talk about, they talked about the person who walked along the ridge. One group was certain that they had seen them wearing a red hat. The other was certain that they had seen a blue hat. They argued more and more and starting fighting amongst themselves. And the god laughed to see what had been done.

     Each group was certain that they had seen all of the hat — so they were equally certain that they were correct in what they saw.

     Both the god and the persons who wrapped the elephant’s legs were deliberately changing what was presented to the people — causing them to perceive something that wasn’t part of the real object. This type of deception, or fabrication, can happen — and does happen based out of many reasons.

     Sometimes, like in the stories of this god, or the First Nation stories about Coyote, the reasons are not malicious. Sometimes, such distortion and fabrication are designed to promote a deliberately flawed reality for selfish or vindictive reasons. But, even without such deliberate distortion, our ability to perceive the entirety is limited.

     The ideal end goal for perception is to know everything (and recognize when information encountered is false). This is called omniscience — and no mortal (or AI) can possibly have it. Still, the greater the amount of accurate information that can be gathered, compared, and correlated allows a more complete notion of the reality of a subsystem or global entity.

     Given that omniscience is not possible for a human, there must be a reduction in the amount of information present. The first reduction is via access. If you cannot access information then you cannot process it. Search engines indicate that between one and four million books are published in English each year. I may read 200 books per year (my wife reads more). A very small percentage. At any given time, there is information (much of an entertainment nature) streaming, or being broadcast across hundreds, or thousands, of channels at a time. I can only actively watch one at a time. While there are choices as to what books I read and what channels I actively watch, I know in advance that there are many others that I will never access.

     Some people try to examine the maximum amount of information that they can -- and potentially reach a condition of information overload. This happens when so much information is accessed that there is no longer enough ability to access, compare, or evaluate the information. Trying to do the maximum is not helpful. Determining the optimum — the most that one can access usefully — is individual and often determined only after having done such.

     You have an optimum amount of information to work with. How was that information selected? First is access. Second is sensory gating — reducing the amount of information processed to prevent overload. The third is individual discrimination. This is where individual perception can start creating artificial realities. Such realities are externally inconsistent but may artificially create an internal consistency — a circular type of affirmation. It is done by choosing information based on what you want to be true. To a degree, this is the process of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias only allows additional information that reinforces existing beliefs or knowledge already integrated.

     We all have some degree of confirmation bias. Scientists often have confirmation bias where anything that does not agree with current theorems and hypotheses is tossed out. This is useful to prevent threshing (changing opinions or reactions back and forth quickly) but can also hinder the growth of science. Almost every new technology or discovery has to go through these hurdles — some quickly and some very slowly (with a lot of posthumous acknowledgements).

     Our reality is created from our perceptions. Our perceptions are based on a limited amount of information. A reality is closer to a universal reality (one that all agree upon) when information is broadly obtained and checked, correlated, and analyzed BEFORE being accepted or rejected.

     On a personal level, I try to read as many newsletters and articles from a global community. This helps to reduce national bias. I try to study history so I have some background to help me to understand the material. I listen to discussions created by people who both tend towards my perceptions as well as those that oppose my interpretations. And I still fail to have THE “correct” view of reality because of my limitations.

     But we can try — and that is all we can do. 

    As mentioned in my 300th blog, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.

Group projects: Not for school only

 

     With three young men in college (one graduating this month with his CS degree and encountering the oxymoronic stonewall of "entry-level" requiring a year or two of experience) I have been hearing about the travails of group projects for at least a dozen years. I keep telling them that it is good practice for working in groups once they enter the job market. And that is true. However, the group projects in college seem to be even more haphazard than the ones we all went through in elementary and secondary school.

     This is second-hand, of course, since it has been a while since I have been in college. Apparently, the idea of forming a group is to pick out three or four people, either at random or in some type of alphabetical order, and then handing out an assignment to them. As much as I want to encourage my sons, and tell them the experience will lead to greater abilities in the work world, that's just not the way groups are "normally" formed in the business world (or, at least, successful groups).

     In elementary and secondary school, the teacher has a pretty good idea of personalities, strengths, and weaknesses after a couple of months with a class. Secondary school teachers have less knowledge because they deal with multiple classes with distinct classes but they still have some. So, there is knowledge behind the choices of composition of a group. (Because of lack of experience, an "ideal" group is often still a matter of luck.)

     A group needs a leader -- or a coordinator -- and it needs people who have specific known skills. Elementary school teachers know who the dominant children of the class are -- but may not know, or have enough children to choose from for, the type of leadership qualities that those dominant children may have. Thus, in some cases, there will not be a sufficient number of dominant children to have one per group and, in other cases, they might be someone who does all the work or who directs other children rather than working with them. In other words, just being dominant does not inherently mean a good leader.

     In elementary school, there is rarely a real aspect of evaluation of success. If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have something they can present -- success! If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have pieces of a bit of a mess -- success! It is hard to have a failure.

     In secondary school, they try to actively evaluate the results of the group but there is likely to be individual results presented as well as the group project. Evaluation can be weighted towards individual results with bonuses passed out for a successful group project. People who work within the group may grumble about those who are not showing an outstanding work ethic but they are not penalized much for them being part of a group.

     Let's skip college for a bit and head to "real life". In real life, the results of the group project are of primary importance. This is true for a group, department, laboratory, or company. If the project is successful, the management will try to give greater weight to rewards for those who seem to have contributed the most (they may not be correct in their evaluations but those are the goals). If the project is unsuccessful, then all in the group will suffer. The ones who did "better" or "more" may be recognized but it is not much to their credit as they will also have a greater share of responsibility for the desired success and any shortcomings that occurred.

     College groups appear to go above and beyond what is required in real life. All are rewarded for a success. All are penalized for failure and if you do your very best and it still fails, you still fail. The primary lesson learned is to do what one can to not become part of teams with less than optimum people in it. Perhaps a valuable lesson  but not something that is always possible within the corporate environment.