AWARENESS TEST

I got the 13 right and at my age that is pleasing!
Never saw the fucking bear though.

I got one bear and no passes.

I don't even think they were interested in playing football.

Nobby Cheese wrote:I got the 13 right and at my age that is pleasing!
Never saw the fucking bear though.

same here

had to replay the video to see if it were taking the piss

I SAW THE BEAR!

runawaytrain wrote:I SAW THE BEAR!

but did you count the passes

I think it might be a man in a bear suit...

13 but no bear ,had my eyes on the ball

you know, you could be right bert
i got to 10 passes then watched the bear

missyj wrote:13 but no bear ,had my eyes on the ...

Today's caption

sooterkin wrote:

Quite true that sooter, often criticised for walking round with my eyes shut, cept when i visit my dentist, the girl on reception is truly something else

I once saw a receptionist with huge boobs. She was at a doctor's. I always thought she'd have been better at an optician's. If you don't see her, you get bottle bottoms.

nothing to be criticised for.

they've done dozens of tests like this and every time the majority of people have failed to notice a change.

not to get too serious, but a common argument used by creationists is that the eyes are a perfect creation and therefore god must exist. in fact, eyes are quite lazy and only 'see' what the brain can be bothered to process.

perhaps this is not the right forum for such arguments.

sooterkin wrote:nothing to be criticised for.

they've done dozens of tests like this and every time the majority of people have failed to notice a change.

not to get too serious, but a common argument used by creationists is that the eyes are a perfect creation and therefore god must exist. in fact, eyes are quite lazy and only 'see' what the brain can be bothered to process.

perhaps this is not the right forum for such arguments.

Very interesting sooter, i say keep them coming as i'm all for expanding my decreasing grey matter

I disagree, S (on the last point, not on the issues above it)

Advertising is similar - I'm trying to recall tstats from back in the eighties - on a standardised commute, we would see 6000 messages or products. We would only register a half a percent and of those, we would only register half of them to discard. That's still fifteen products, which makes advertising both a huge waste and perversely, worth it at the same time.

You do only see what you want to see. A prime example is if you're in a city centre, any city centre, and unless you're doing it deliberately for something preordained (address, building, suicide and you're the negotiator), you never look higher than 20 feet above ground. I've seen trees growing out of cracks in substantial old buildings that I'd lay odds that I'm the only person who has noted that all day.

In terms of the processing above, the black team are there but you are discounting them from the task you've been given on instruction. The bear moves in the same staccato way as the rest of his "team" so while disregarding, you don't register the thing that you're disregarding. Conjurors work in exactly the same way, by showing you what they want you to see while obscuring the "trick" element.

it's all in good fun until eyewitness testimony comes into play.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

bottom line, you don't always see what you think you saw.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Any eyewitness account is open to suggestion and when you think about it, it's like the advertising thing. You aren't looking for it, you sure as shite don't recall it.

Bert wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with that. Any eyewitness account is open to suggestion and when you think about it, it's like the advertising thing. You aren't looking for it, you sure as shite don't recall it.

exactly.

he wasn't the first to do it, but derren brown does a simple person swap 'trick' and everybody falls for it. it's based on an old university experiment, but i cannot recall the original study.

you can watch it here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBPG_OBgTWg can't embed it for some reason.

the advertising thing is interesting. they basically play a numbers game and even a low percentage of high exposure is worth the expense. they also do high repetition, which is proven to work.

You can to a certain degree do it yourself, S. I sometimes gauge how much I am getting inside people's heads by leaving tags in conversation and communication to be picked up and reused. People don't realise that they might imitate their favourites, but they also imitate those who have annoyed them as well - it's not the positive or negative, it's the fact of it registering.

You get so much more out of people by mirroring them as well

great thread

Bert wrote: I sometimes gauge how much I am getting inside people's heads

Usually out of effect, Tony. I'm not a salesman but I have a background in training/education. I don't try to give people something they might want but don't need. I will try and force people to think when they aren't though, whether it be directly or laterally.

It's not enough to get it out of my head, I have to get it into others.

Bert wrote:You can to a certain degree do it yourself, S. I sometimes gauge how much I am getting inside people's heads by leaving tags in conversation and communication to be picked up and reused. People don't realise that they might imitate their favourites, but they also imitate those who have annoyed them as well - it's not the positive or negative, it's the fact of it registering.

You get so much more out of people by mirroring them as well

mirroring is a favourite NLP device and one which i also use.

leaving tags is harder to do and often involves talking to people for much longer than i usually like. it can be fun though, if you're stuck in a conversation.

the way our language works, most people have no interest or need to listen to what you're saying. we speak in blocks of words and only the key elements as well as the tone is ever recorded. people basically wait for you to stop so they can say what's on their mind.