Invisible gorilla test

[MIB41]

Here is a fascinating study. Participants were asked to watch two groups of people dressed in black or white shirts pass a basketball around. They were then asked to count how many times the people in white shirts tossed the ball. While this was occurring, someone walked into the group in a monkey suit. When asked afterward, how many noticed the monkey, many did NOT! Here's the article and the video those participants had to watch.

'Invisible Gorilla' Test Shows How Little We Notice - Yahoo! News

[spamn]

When I did this, the only reason I spotted the monkey suit was that I gave up trying to track the basketball.

[Doc]

Ive seen this one before and yes missed the gorilla. If you read the article they talk about how everyone knows this now and can easily watch for the gorilla so they made a 2nd test. And I'll be damned they got me again.


2nd time around I got the # of passes and the monkey and missed everything else.

[mitchedwards]

THe gorilla was plain as day on tis second test. The 1st test was much better

[Sandman9580]

I wouldn't read too much into this.

You're asked to do a brief task that requires you to focus intently on one relatively complicated thing in the midst of distracting movement. You're asked to ignore the people in black. A person wearing a black costume briefly and nonchalantly walks around. And then... we're supposed to be shocked that most people miss it? Come on.

[Doc]

THe gorilla was plain as day on tis second test. The 1st test was much better

The point of the second test was not to catch the # of passes or the Gorilla.


It was to notice they changed the color of the curtain behind them and that one of the black team members left the stage.

[Brazoo]

I remember that first one from a few years ago, it's pretty cool, and I think the follow up is great too.

We can perform astonishing tasks with our senses, but ultimately our senses are extremely fallible - partially because we put too much faith in them.

[Brazoo]

I wouldn't read too much into this.

You're asked to do a brief task that requires you to focus intently on one relatively complicated thing in the midst of distracting movement. You're asked to ignore the people in black. A person wearing a black costume briefly and nonchalantly walks around. And then... we're supposed to be shocked that most people miss it? Come on.

Yeah - in this particular case it's not a big deal to miss it, but I believe the point is to think of this test in a real world context - let's say we were concentrating on driving and then we partially witnessed a crime - the consequences of depending on information we think we see as oppose to being able to actually take in everything could possibly have serious effects.

Or - how about this one - in A LOT of cases of supernatural experiences or UFO sightings the witnesses are doing something (like driving) - often at night - often tired. I'm not even trying to debate the existence of supernatural phenomena here, but there are a lot of accounts from people that just happen to be recalled by folks in essentially the worst possible mental state for depending on their senses for new information.

I don't think this test is mind blowing scientifically - but I think it's great as a little reminder for people who think their senses can't ever be fooled.

[Meule]

The gorilla was plain as day, how could anyone not see it?

[Cmonster]

The gorilla was plain as day, how could anyone not see it?

I KNOW!

SC

[EmergencyIan]

I was counting how many times the white shirts passed the basketball ... I missed it. lol


- Ian

[Brazoo]

Meule and Cmonster - To be totally fair to the test the title of the article primes you a little - it shouldn't be called "Invisible Gorilla" to do it properly.

[Doc]

Meule and Cmonster - To be totally fair to the test the title of the article primes you a little - it shouldn't be called "Invisible Gorilla" to do it properly.

Exactly. That was the nature of the article. How many people read it all the way down and took the second test and said Oooo theres the gorilla and missed everything else? LOL

[LadyZod]

We did this in my workplace. They called it an attention to detail exercise.

We were told they were testing how well our attention to detail was, and that we would have to keep track of the ball and that we were be tested on it.

At the end, they asked how many people counted X amount of dribbles. Then how about X-1 dribbles. How many counted X-2 dribbles... and finally, in which direction did the gorilla enter and leave the scene.

At that question everyone was like, HUH? What gorilla?

That was the point. We were shown the same clip again, and told to ignore the ball... and we saw it, plain as day.

The point of the exercise was to point out that sometimes you get so focused on one task, that you miss the obvious.

[Sandman9580]

Yeah - in this particular case it's not a big deal to miss it, but I believe the point is to think of this test in a real world context - let's say we were concentrating on driving and then we partially witnessed a crime - the consequences of depending on information we think we see as oppose to being able to actually take in everything could possibly have serious effects.

Or - how about this one - in A LOT of cases of supernatural experiences or UFO sightings the witnesses are doing something (like driving) - often at night - often tired. I'm not even trying to debate the existence of supernatural phenomena here, but there are a lot of accounts from people that just happen to be recalled by folks in essentially the worst possible mental state for depending on their senses for new information.

I don't think this test is mind blowing scientifically - but I think it's great as a little reminder for people who think their senses can't ever be fooled.

Yeah, it's a neat parlor trick. It's just that, the whole point of focusing hard on a task is that we've already made the decision to ignore other stuff. When most of us drive, we're not concentrating that hard unless clues in the environment tell us we should be (i.e. the lane narrowed, the road's slippery, children are playing in the street etc.). And when we do concentrate, we're rarely doing it with the crystallized focus we're asked to give in the experiment. But I understand your point. Our perception is limited, and it can have Rashomon-like consequences. Our eyes don't actually "see", our brain does. It's fascinating to think about the implications of all of it! (And it can get a little spooky, too.)

But (not to drag it on and on here) what really bothers me about the video is that it's "shock value" seems to depend on semantics, i.e. "There was a gorilla in the room?! How could I have missed that???" Well, no, it was a person of average size in a black costume, you were asked to ignore the people in black, and none of the players reacted the way they would had an actual gorilla wandered in, so you weren't given any social cues (no one freaking out) to distract you from your task. In other words, no one should be slapping their forehead.

If the terms of the experiment were reversed, would anyone bat an eye? "Your job is to notice when the guy in the gorilla costume enters and exits the frame." Afterwards you're asked, "did you notice how many times the people in white passed the ball?" Well, of course you didn't. You weren't paying attention. And it wouldn't bother you. But of course, that's not as much fun as thinking, "Woa! I missed the gorilla!"