Introspection Illusion
The Misconception: You know why you like the things you like and feel the way you feel.
The Truth: The origin of certain emotional states is unavailable to you, and when pressed to explain them, you will just make something up.
Take a look at this piece of art:
It is one of the most popular pieces of art ever featured at DeviantArt.com.
Now, imagine you have to write an essay on why it is popular. Go ahead, think of a reasonable explanation. No, don’t keep reading. Give it a shot. Explain why this is a great photo.
Ok, moving on.
Is there a certain song you love, or a work of art? Perhaps there is a movie you keep returning to over the years, or book. Go ahead and imagine one of those favorite things. Now, in one sentence, try to explain why you like it. Chances are, you will find it difficult to put into words, but if pressed you will probably be able to come up with something. The problem is, according to research, your explanation is probably going to be total bullshit.
Tim Wilson at UVA demonstrated this with The Poster Test. He brought a group of students into a room and showed them a series of posters. The students were told they could take any one they wanted as a gift and keep it. He then brought in another group, and told them the same thing, but this time they had to explain why they wanted the poster before they picked. He then waited six months and asked the two groups what they thought of their choices. The first group, the ones who just got to grab a poster and leave, they all loved their choice. The second group, the ones who had to write out why, hated theirs. The first group, the grab-and-go people, usually picked a nice, fancy painting. The second group, the ones who had to explain their choice, usually picked an inspirational poster with a cat clinging to a rope.
This brings up a lot of concerns. It calls into question the entire industry of critical analysis of art – video games, music, film, poetry, literature – all of it. It also makes things like focus groups and market analysis seem like farts in the wind.
When you ask people why they do or do not like things, they must then translate something from a deep, emotion, primal part of their psyche into the language of the higher, logical, rational world of words and sentences and paragraphs. Also, when you attempt to justify your decisions or emotional attachments, you start worrying about what your explanation says about you as a person.
In the above example, most people truly preferred the lady over the cat, but they couldn’t conjure up the rational explanation why, at least not in a way which would make logical sense on paper. On the other hand, you can write all sorts of bullshit about a motivational poster.
In a similar experiment by the same psychologist who conducted the Poster Test, people were shown two small photos of two different people and were asked which one was more attractive. They then were handed a larger photo. They were told it was the one they picked, but it was actually a completely different person. They were then asked why they chose it. Each time, people dutifully spun a yarn explaining their choice.
Believing you understand your motivations and desires, your likes and dislikes, is called the Introspection Illusion. You believe you know yourself, and why you are the way you are. You believe this knowledge tells you how you will act in all future situations. Research shows otherwise.
Time after time, experiments show introspection is not the act of tapping into your innermost mental constructs, but is instead a fabrication, a construction, a fiction. You look at what you did, or how you felt, and you make up some sort of explanation which you can reasonably believe. If you have to tell others, you make up an explanation they can believe too.
When it comes to explaining why you like the things you like, you are not so smart, and the very act of having to explain yourself can change your attitudes. In this new era of Twitter and Facebook and blogs, just about everyone is broadcasting their love or hate of art. Just look at all the vitriol and praise being lobbed back and forth over “Avatar” or “Lost.”
When “Titanic” earned its Oscars, some people were saying it might just be the greatest film ever made. Now, it’s considered good but schmaltzy, a fine film, but decidedly melodramatic. What will people think in 100 years?
It would be wise to remember many of the works we now consider classics were in their time critically panned.
For instance, this is how one reviewer described “Moby Dick” in 1851:
This is an ill-compounded mixture of romance and matter-of-fact. The idea of a connected and collected story has obviously visited and abandoned its writer again and again in the course of composition. The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed…We have little more to say in reprobation or in recommendation of this absurd book…Mr. Melville has to thank himself only if his horrors and his heroics are flung aside by the general reader, as so much trash belonging to the worst school of Bedlam literature — since he seems not so much unable to learn as disdainful of learning the craft of an artist.
- Henry F. Chorley, in London Athenaeum
Now, this book is considered one of a handful of great American novels and is held up as an example of the best pieces of literature ever written.
Chances are though, no one can truly explain why.
SOURCES:
- Haigh, E. A. P., & Fresco, D. M. (n.d.). Relationship of depressive rumination and distraction to subsequent depressive symptoms following successful antidepressant medication therapy for depression. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.personal.kent.edu/~dfresco/Fresco_Papers/AABT_05_Rum_Haigh.pdf.
- Wilson T. D., Dunn D. S., Kraft D., & Lisle D. J. (1989). Introspection, attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive effects of explaining why we feel the way we do. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 287–343.
- Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991, February). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 181–192.
Like this:
Trackbacks
- Quote of the day « Econstudentlog
- “It calls into question the entire industry of critical analysis of art” | The Brayn
- WWL – You Are Not So Smart | Whiskey and Car Keys
- Benjamin Reece // Director, Entrepreneur, & Filmmaker
- Twitted by kylecameron
- introspection, or explaining yourself
- introspection, or explaining yourself
- Why we need a second (or third) Wonder Woman series · Supergirl: Maid of Might
- “know thyself” « hbd* chick
- Army of One | Yr Funny Valentine
- The Blind Spot « Grim Rhapsody
- Today’s cup: Egypt, a new NBC/Universal logo and the 25th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger - Life Politics The Morning Cup - Egyptian protests NBC/Uinversal logo Space Shuttle Challenger Tea Party caucus - Daily Cup of Jo
- blog(s) of the week(s): you are not so smart & esther from the sticks « MetalFirecracker
- Commensuration « Jack-In-the-Brain
- Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand? - Page 44 - Christian Forums
- Let’s Talk About Our Feelings « Fuck You Dopamine
“The origin of certain emotional states is unavailable to you, and when pressed to explain them, you will just make something up.”
Reminds me of something similar I heard in NLP – Andrew Austin. If you ask people to tell you why they did something, they can’t – they will tell you something…if you tell them, ok, what if it wasn’t that? They’ll come up with something else.
We lie to ourselves all the time.
I disagree. We don’t lie to ourselves. We simply try to accommodate the wishes of those who are asking, even though we know the simple answer is what we feel, which is not usually explainable in more than a few words.
Why do w do that? Some psycho-babblers will have you believe it is because we are seeking approval, suffer from low self-esteem, or some other nonsense, but the simple truth is, people like people, and people like to help out.
Feelings and words are very different. To try to express how we feel is very difficult, and often, because we find this difficult, we begin to add more words to our explanations. This causes us to make up things that sound like they make sense, and then we begin to agree with whatever we just said even though it may only be partly true, or a sub-par appraisal of our innermost thoughts and feelings.
Words get confusing. I feel that, however, actions and body language speak much more honestly than do our verbal expressions, and as we allow, the way we truly feel will be accurately manifest through these non-verbal means. I catch myself all the time trying to explain who i am or what i feel and have to stop because i start to say things that arent true because they sound good. I just dont talk about myself anymore.
Great article.
Explain why.
Ha. perfect
You lost me when you started applying the “test of time” to Moby Dick and similar art.
Is the implication that the unconscious appreciation of a work of art is inherently more valuable than a conscious, active appreciation? Aren’t they completely different activities? I don’t think the second is bullshit, simply because it occupies a different realm of critical thinking.
I’m saying research seems to indicate people can’t truly explain why they like the things they like, and the act of explaining yourself can cause you to question exactly how you feel – which can sometimes change your behavior.
I’m not suggesting either the conscious or unconsious appreciation of art is superior, just different. Yet, the perception is often they are the same thing.
“I’m saying research seems to indicate people can’t truly explain why they like the things they like, and the act of explaining yourself can cause you to question exactly how you feel – which can sometimes change your behavior”
That’s a good explanation; I agree. I also, however, believe most people know themselves in the larger sense. As for Titanic, who the hell said it’s now schmaltzy?? What bull.
“I’m saying research seems to indicate people can’t truly explain why they like the things they like, and the act of explaining yourself can cause you to question exactly how you feel – which can sometimes change your behavior.”
People often don’t feel the same after introspection, that seems to make sense. Geniune introspection also seems to be a look into yourself, by yourself, and so not automatically expressed or thought out in terms of language.
I think the central distinction you’ve hit upon here is the poor translation between feelings and words, especially in a solely logical context. I don’t think that means that people can’t know why they like things, or are even incapable of explaining it to others. It’s difficult, sure, but to try and tackle the entirety of artistic history with an experiment about posters seems a little short sighted.
I thought of why I loved the picture from Deviant Art, and in seconds I knew, the colours appeal to me, the softness appeals to me, and it is like a lovely dream of an idealised world. I still love it, and actually downloaded it as my wallpaper. The picture is such that even when ‘stretched’ to my screen size, it still retains its appeal. I don’t think I will stop loving it simply cos I ‘analysed’ it. (Of course, I tend to change my wallpaper every few weeks, but that doesn’t mean I won’t still love it, it’s just that there are so MANY beautiful/cute pictures out there in cyberspace, and since they’re free for personal use, why be limited to only one?)
Anyway, thanks for the article. It is a lot to think about. (Although neither of the two posters you showed appealed to me in any way.)
I don’t think the results show that you’d regret it, if you analyse your choice after the fact. It’s that, if you base your choice on critical analysis, you’re more likely to regret that. The difference is whether the choice comes first or the analysis does.
This article, to me, suggests the importance of exercising and developing our critical faculties.
A few thoughts:
* Most people picked the cat poster because they knew they had to explain why and it was the easiest poster for most people to explain. A test group of trained art critics may have chosen differently…
* Just because we are able to improvise reasons for liking something, it doesn’t make those reasons ‘bullshit’… and the fact that our response to something may change over time or develop through debate doesn’t make that response any less valuable…
* No one can (and no one would claim to) ‘truly’ explain why certain novels or works of art are highly esteemed now, but we can discuss the various factors involved (not just aesthetic btw). It is only through that discussion that art/literature exist – ie. they are discursively constructed.
Another great article, although I can’t exactly say why. ;)
It is an issue which is outspoken in my field of user-driven design. Long ago we learned that users cannot be asked to innovate, only to inform mental models of how their world is put together. Applied anthropology (and ethnography) remind us that people are usually bullshitting to make sense of their own lives and actions – muddling through. To simply take their explanations and reasonings as cut and dried would be naive at best, unproductive at worst. The most we can hope for is bullshit explanations with recurring themes that reveal deeper motivations and preferences.
Great article, and I believe this dovetails beautifully with economist/hedonic researcher Daniel Kahneman’s ideas about the story-telling self vs. the experiencing self. See his TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html
I think anyone interested in this article will get something out of this video.
“When “Titanic” earned its Oscars, some people were saying it might just be the greatest film ever made. Now, it’s considered good but schmaltzy, a fine film, but decidedly melodramatic.”
Not sure exactly what underlying criteria for greatness you’re invoking here, but I believe Titanic is great in part because of its schmaltzy melodrama. Like the short, major-chord hooks of pop songs, melodrama appeals to a wide audience and seems to be especially effective with teenagers. Having gotten many of the world’s teenagers to watch, Cameron took one of the great human experiences, coming to terms with death, and dramatized it honestly and well. Beats the tar out of most critically acclaimed major studio work IMHO.
When I was young I used to think that everyone saw the colours and shapes and motion I did when I heard music or looked at art. For me, creating art has helped better convey an introspection that never made any sense in text or speech. I suspect many artists throughout human history have recognized this. Much to our delight I might add.
This is a very interesting article and I think the format of this blog is very engaging.
But firstly, I don’t think this is a common misconception; most people recognise that one’s aesthetic preferences can’t be explained entirely logically.
Secondly, I don’t think any of this calls into question the ‘industry of critical analysis’, nor does it make market analysis into the proverbial gaseous emmisions. The industry and the culture of critical analysis is there because people enjoy engaging in analyses, even highly spurious ones, of cultural artifacts; I’m not sure who would say the purpose of these critiques is to lead us to an aesthetic ideal. Rather, reading or listening to the opinions of people you identify with helps to reinforce your assumptions and preferences, and bond you to a groub or confirm your status; you mention yourself that people love to advertise these preferences.
As for market analysis, it has moved on considerably since the 1970′s, and really does inform the profiteers of what will sell. The public aren’t to be trusted with designing products by committee, but with careful methods, it is possible to tell to some extent what they will buy, and why.
Essentially this article very eloquently illustrates that preferences are cultural consructs, and if forced to publically rationalise, to strangers (as opposed to sub-consciously or privately) people’s expressed preferences change.
The fact that a consensus critical opinion takes many years to form, and is somewhat malleable, is inevitable. It’s the ecology of the culture evolving; memes become more stable.
OK, I’m getting a bit vague. I prefer being a scientist than all this sociological lark, but really, still, I am so smart. It seems strange that people fall for the introspection illusion, but I suppose I do at times too.
“Time after time, experiments show introspection is not the act of tapping into your innermost mental constructs, but is instead a fabrication, a construction, a fiction.”
The thing about this is that it might be the innermost mental constructs that are doing the fabrication. I agree the soul or mind is a construction only there when you are observing it, and in that sense might be said not to exist in fact. But that doesn’t mean observing it, or indulging in the recursive process of seeing how observation of it causes it to change, is a useless activity.
Similarly muddling through believing your inventions about yourself is actually a very reasonable way to act. Subjectivity is just the way things must be to proceed; the objective world is too informationally rich to effectively inform actions….
I wonder humbly if you would do a post on the converse misconception ‘There is no such thing as objective aesthetics’. You could cite the golden mean, body shape preferences (waist-hip ratio and symmetry) and the whole field of music analysis. This article might interest you:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
I wanted to explain this to myself a long time ago. Theres something wrong with our manners in describing things. Thanks for the great insight, David.
How about if I explain why this article is retarded in 1 sentence or less?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the actual research paper by Wilson et al. (“Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction”, available http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/175/paper/wilson-lisle.pdf) has different posters in it (by Gogh and Monet) and the check-up was done after three weeks rather than six months.
The purpose of critical analysis is not solely to find out why something is good or why we like or dislike it, but also to place a work of art in its social and political context and explain the interaction of the artwork with that context. So the idea that not really being able to explain why we like something somehow invalidates critical analysis is frankly more than a little bit odd.
I wonder if a major factor in this couldn’t be the pervasive inability to use language well. This could apply both to an inability to describe why you like something —when the feelings are there and you are cognizant of them— and being unable to identify the feelings themselves, because many people’s dominance of language used as a form as expression of complex ideas (rather than just, “I’m going to the store,” “Please put that over there,” etc.) is lacking. When it comes to art appreciation, at least, I would think that some people wouldn’t struggle so much to describe how something made them felt. After all, one of the reasons certain novelists and poets and essayists move so many people is because they are somehow able to express to an audience some of the deepest feelings many of us experience but have difficulties putting into our own words.
*made them FEEL. Ahem, speaking of using language well.
It’s interesting to me to read this article after being linked to this older one: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2009/12/22/pop-music/
Both get at the mutability of our preferences, but there are also some competing premises here. One, from this article, is that the whole industry of critical analysis is suspect; the other, from the older one, is that there are some songs that really were truly awesome or truly crappy. This latter point suggests that there ARE certain standards of quality common to many people. And it’s not a far leap from there to suggest that there are reasons for why we perceive something as obviously good or bad, and that it’s possible to articulate those reasons.
I think, like anything, articulating why you like something is a learned skill, which some people spend more time learning. Like other commenters, I had no trouble articulating precisely why I liked that photo (vivid colors and dreamlike depth/contrast), and would have no trouble articulating why I like my favorite band or movie, because I think a lot about why I do. I also agree that the results would likely have been different with a group of art critics, and suspect that people’s desire to please got in the way of this study.
This isn’t to say that I’m not suggestible in my preferences, and it’s possible that more articulate bullshit is still essentially bullshit.
Is it possible the Matthew effect could be in play in that DeviantArt example? I.e., the photo gets attention, so it gets shown more and takes up more real estate, occluding other pieces, feeding back and doing it all over again?
I don’t know, but the Matthew Effect sounds like a great post idea. Thanks for showing it to me; I’ve never read about it before.
You totally left me hanging as to why the DeviantArt piece was so popular. I mean, I get that my explanation is bullshit, but what’s the real reason?
No worries, I’ll keep hanging in there, baby!
I don’t have an explanation, and I’m not sure I want to know what the brain scanners in 100 years are going to say about it.
There are a few pieces of the puzzle missing here. I will state them in the form of observations:
(1) It has surprised me to learn, this late in life, that few people understand how to parse out multiple, equally compelling motivations for someone’s actions; that multiple reasons can exist, and in most of decisions there are multiple reasons for us coming down where we do. But nearly everyone confuses the existences of many reasons as conflation, or prevarication, or, as the author of this article states, ‘lies’.
(2) The reason for this is likely the fact that our brains process information a lot – A LOT – faster than we can communicate it to other brains. The economy of conversation strips down and distills out all of the rich, full thought. We are far lazier, or time-stressed, then we are dishonest.
(3) This means that when we disagree, or we don’t understand, we should ASK QUESTIONS… HONESTLY. Not leading questions. It is beautiful to see honesty evoke honesty.
Good luck communicating, fellow travelers.
People always wear masks and will be different when exposed to others. Even their thoughts are changing in the presence of others.
Nice article !
I think a lot of what this article says is valid, but I disagree with the statement, “It calls into question the entire industry of critical analysis of art – video games, music, film, poetry, literature – all of it.” I think to truly know if that conclusion is valid you’d have to apply the experiment on trained artists and see how they compare to the general population. To me the study simply illustrates the fact that most people haven’t studied artworks or their emotions sufficiently enough to know how the artworks affect them. That understanding isn’t unattainable but requires work.
I’m a little uneasy about the way you divorce people’s likes and interests from class and politics. Nobody in the world is born liking Van Gogh or Avatar or Supertramp; our taste is learned, and the process of learning is highly dependent on our culture, our level of affluence, and all sorts of other factors. People don’t like to admit this, which is why we always come down to “it’s just a feeling!” “I just like it!” “there’s no accounting for taste!” and so on. We want to believe that we’re totally idiosyncratic and that our tastes are unique, but in fact we generally turn out to be very much like the people who raised us and who surrounded us as we grew up. Your post seems to reproduce this self-serving tendency rather than exposing its roots.
You may find Pierre Bourdieu’s work on museums relevant here. Bourdieu demonstrated that the people who have strong opinions about fine art are the people who are already comfortable going to museums (which usually means they’re middle class or upper-middle class). We want to believe that “taste” is innate and housed in some unreachable part of our gut, but we learn it just like we learn everything else.
This is important because someone who wants to pooh-pooh the philistines who prefer Dogs Playing Poker to Botticelli can casually proclaim that they have no taste (when in fact it is only her economic privilege talking). But if she then goes on to talk to a friend who prefers Goya to Botticelli, she can engage in a lively debate (that she perceives to be among worthy peers). Differences in taste are ‘acceptable’ sometimes and ‘unacceptable’ at other times but it’s not your gut or your soul that decides it: it’s your upbringing.
@ASG – Great comment. Class and politics do indeed play a role in building our expectations, as do the sorts of things experts and loved ones tell us should be appreciated. I don’t mean to suggest our likes and dislikes have no connection to this sort of conditioning.
Very interesting article. Honestly I don’t buy most of it, however.
“Time after time, experiments show introspection is not the act of tapping into your innermost mental constructs, but is instead a fabrication, a construction, a fiction.”
While quite possible, I think it also greatly depends on how adequate the individual is at introspection. It is entirely possible to apply a basic understanding of causality to determine certain aspects of your own psyche.
“When it comes to explaining why you like the things you like, you are not so smart, and the very act of having to explain yourself can change your attitudes.”
This is entirely the point of introspection, and with the realization of this specific phenomena, it makes it possible to deceive your own mind, and in doing so- provides a very strong tactic for changing your own perceptions and attitudes.
What we love and what we admit we love are often very different things. And when we are to choose what we feel someone else will love, well, that’s yet another, entirely different, animal.
The mystics throughout history have always said to speak your own truth and never mind the man or woman in front of you. Why is that so hard for us to do?
Wow this blog is filled with awesome information and great writing. I am going to bookmark this right now.
As far as the introspection illusion is concerned, I think most people don’t understand their unconscious expressions and thoughts, but – with practice and mindfulness – we can develop a clearer understanding of ourselves. At the same time, I love your blog because it helps shed awareness on where we often make mistakes – which in itself is a way to learn more about our own minds. Kinda paradoxical when you think about it.
@Steven Handel – Thanks for reading and bookmarking.
I have never bought the idea that the quality of a work of art is simply taste and is totally subjective, so I’m calling bullshit on this poster study.
Critical faculties vary considerably from person to person, not always along class lines (how many rich people have terrible taste? ahem) and there is something to be said for expertise and depth of understanding. In the poster example, the painting clearly holds up better to scrutiny and repeated viewing than the more literal-minded and less imaginative cat poster. This is not an accident of taste. That assumption bugged the crap out of me in college when my postmodernist English teachers said it and it bugs the crap out of me now. (Danielle Steele is NOT just as good as Herman Melville.) There are countless more objective measurements in addition to the subjectivity that the “study” privileges. People who go to museums have a high sensitivity to the complexity and ambiguity of art than people who do not. And much of that sensitivity is learned.
Further, focus groups are designed to discover mass tastes along pre-determined parameters. When a TV pilot is made, they don’t ask film critics what they think. They ask the advertisers’ target demographic what they think. It’s business, not art criticism. Take the example of The Love Boat. It was a hugely popular show, but does that make it good by consensus? No, it merely shows the poor taste of people who watch a lot of TV.
I’m not sure where you got the impression that anyone mistook Titanic for a masterpiece (except for the teenage girls who saw it 10 times). Pretty much everyone was on the same page as you are: it’s very well done schmaltz. Oscars are a horse race – always has been – not a validation of inherent quality.
@Ray Butlers – Thanks for the comment. I’m not arguing against variations in quality here, just that we aren’t good at explaining why we like the things we like, and don’t like the things we don’t.
When I looked at the picture from Deviant Art I thought that I liked it. Rather than why, I asked myself what I liked about it. I still don’t know why I liked those qualities.
I am also from South Mississippi and I really enjoy your website.
I have an in-law that is an artist and I am forwarding this topic to him, I think he will be very interested.
I have often wondered why I am drawn to art that shows landscapes that have storm clouds rolling in or very prominent in the baackground. Would you or anyone give me an idea? Thanks……
Is it just me, or does this study simply confirm that most people don’t know what they like, or why they like it–something critics have known forever?
I don’t see how it calls the validity of educated criticism into question, though it definitely highlights the fact that polling is next to useless except as a political tool.
Your critique definately reminds me of Edward Berney’s Propogandsa.
When I studied photography in college, I had an instructor that used the ideas of gestalt psychology when talking about why art has appeal. I found what she said interesting though I admit I’ve not looked at it too closely.
Pretty much, gestalt is often described as “the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”. This can in part be represented by four dots and our brains seeing a square (Law of Closure). The dots cannot make a square, the lines do not exist, but we see more than is really there. The same can be said about art. The tree image: a lone tree is pretty cliche; pink and blue color scheme is nothing new and not interesting; crazy sky is pretty much the hallmark of all fantasy-type landscapes; surreal ground is just that and again not interesting. However, add it all together and it seems our minds add something else. The non-existent lines connecting the dots, if you will. That is the part most people struggle with, pinpointing why they like something when the broken down elements rarely amount to much on their own.
There is obviously more to this brand of psychology, but the connection to how we may view and judge art is pretty interesting.
Nice article. I was an English major in college, so I have a slightly different take. Often times we do know why we like something, but other times we don’t. So yeah, sometimes we make up bullshit to explain ourselves, but with time and training we become better at understanding ourselves, our interests, etc.
That picture of the tree? I hate it. I hate it because it isn’t real. It’s fake. It’s cheesy. It has nothing to tell me. It’s utopian in the worst way. Granted, I’ve evolved in a culture that makes me see it that way, but I think knowing the cultural context bolsters the authenticity of my criticism rather than undercutting it.
I like Hamlet because he reminds me of myself. He’s constantly lost in thought, and he deludes himself into thinking he’s capable of superhuman psychological feats when in fact he’s descending into madness. And Shakespeare writes in beautifully balanced meter, or else in jagged prose, depending on what the action calls for.
I like Moby Dick because of Melville’s romantic language, the juxtaposition of groovy Ishmael, a big ass whale, and a psychopathic captain. Oh, and Queequag is funny.
I’m pretty confident that these analyses are more than bullshit. Don’t get me wrong, though. I am aware that sometimes I don’t know why I like or dislike something and I end up stringing arguments together which end up being more important than my initial reaction. The other day I was trying to explain how and why I like Pavement. I sounded like a moron. After writing for hours I went back to Slanted & Enchanted and realized I’d conjured the whole argument out of a thin air. It had nothing to do with the album. Okay, it had to do with one song which wasn’t representative of the album.
I personally have subjected myself to some experiments to try and detect this behavior, and have ultimately failed. I absolutely do not follow the pattern of any of the effects listed.
Does that mean I’m an amazingly unique individual? Well they didn’t find pixie dust in my last brain MRI, so the more likely explanation is: I’ve conditioned myself to have a good reason for doing things before I do them to such a degree that rather than doing things and confabulating reasons later, I go through the entire confabulation process pre-emptively, and have my bullshit answer before the action is even started. 8o
“Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”
Oscar Wilde wrote that. I think this ‘misconception’ arises from some need to quantify everything in our lives. We know what mileage our cars get, the interest rate on our mortgage, everything, everything with quantities and numbers. Art is purely qualitative. I don’t know if that’s inherent, but it definitely feels like it is. Maybe it’s human to apply quantities to aesthetics, but even if it is, it doesn’t make sense. Beautiful things are just beautiful. Not that there is any universal standard, of course. On some level there are cultural standards, but those are overruled by personal standards, and even those are overruled by the passage of time.
..And now that I’m thinking about it, I feel that my explanation is bullshit…
…and maybe the ‘well written, or badly written’ thing is a stock explanation for why we like something.
How does a certain art insider disdain impact the pattern recognition “sense make sense” of people put under the pressure to “make a choice”. How much does the media impact the vision?
Maybe chocolate box art is nearer to the human as conceptual poseurism?
Maybe the “everything goes, but nothing matters” voyeurism of a certain “insideness”,
is avoiding to see the “greater picture” including their own motivation of perception and observation of those controlled and observed.
Did Video art made a CCTV society more “arty”?
How society relevant/or absent of true engagement is the “art market” scene?
For people that like that picture (it’s ok, I don’t hate it, wouldn’t have picked it as a favorite), the first reasons that came to mind were the contrasts. The starkness of the tree trunk contrasts the fluffier material in front of it (also creating a depth-of-field, which I’d consider a contrast). It uses bright colors, which also happen to be opposing on the color wheel (pale red against pale blue). We’re pretty much hard-wired to enjoy that sort of thing.
However, it should be noted that I am not psychologically normal.
I appreciate your blog and this particular article.
In 1994 I had to help a librarian sort through hundreds of books (bestsellers from the thirties through the sixties) for any that had “current value.” It was an impressive lesson in how books, fiction or non, that were raved about and widely purchased had rapidly dropped into oblivion. Almost one hundred percent of all the proudly grinning authors on the jacket covers were reduced to Ozymandias-type ironies.
People like what the zeitgeist (which can cover a year or a century) encourages them to like.
Very little lasts.
I love rereading the pre socratics, old taoists, “classical” poetry …Friends thoughts through the century’s.
Timeless!
The “real thing”is not subjected to the “Zeitgeist” , who is much too often cynical mainstream pleasing sensationalism. And nothing bores that public more than the own uncreative shallow reflection of their superficial yesterday pseudo “concern” attitude blah!
Hmmm … verrry weak piece. The weakest that I have read. I guess it was your first blog entry ;-)
It kind of goes all over the place and generalizes awfully bad.
You had me hooked with your beginning lines and theory and then lost me because you added nothing after my listing ‘my points’ about why I liked the first Devianart poster. Thought I’d see people saying exactly the same things I was saying about why I liked the poster .. that would be something.
Next the ‘test’ with the grabbers and the explainers. WOW that really was quite puzzling for me .. I don’t know what else was on offer in the choice of posters that were there presented in the series for the two groups .. But I did a mental test about choosing just from the two you show .. that “tacky cat” one and the beautiful study of the woman at a table .. NO WAY IN HELL – whether to grab or to offer an explanation – would I have touched the cat poster with a barge pole.
What’s so tough about explanations that just say,”I have no idea. It just moves me to see this. I feel I have been that woman on somedays .. it resonates .. it captures for me what I have felt.”
Yes there is no art criticism or study or any kind of logical technical explanantion I can give .. I guess the ‘research’ that was mounted did not ask for ‘technical’ / pinpointed, pre-defined as correct, an answer. Did it?
So I don’t buy that MOST people are such “pseuds” that JUST to look hoity toity type will choose something that they do not like .. NO WAY. If given a choice to pick with explanation, and go .. they do usually first pick .. because they know it’s for keeps .. and then they try as best as they can to explain why .. and then go. They keep what they spend time picking – usually.
The second ‘test’ example of choosing the attractive face is also puzzling. HOW do you forget a face you choose? You must be spending some minimal time looking at the faces [I am guessing average looking faces were given as choice? Choosing a face with a Fibonacci layout of features with a smile vs one with with a hooked nose and mole and poke marks and grump would derail the whole experiment] – because they are faces you don’t know .. you spend time cooking a story in your head about what they might be like, do they resemble people you have met in life? Etc .. you spend enough time to figure out why you like a face before you choose. Unless the choice is as obvious as the mug of Monroe vs mug of Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire’s get-up .. the audience had never ever seen these iconic images ever.
How do you then forget that face .. so that when a blown up version is presented [unless it's so so blurry with GIANT PIXELS] that you can’t recognize that it’s not the same face and just pop up some explanation.
You CAN explain WHY this or ANY face could be attractive .. we are all scriptwriters and authors in our heads and can transform any face [ we don't know] into an attractive one or not .. Try that yourself .. and see. So like someone said .. when preseneted with a face people out of politeness will not argue that it’s the same face .. and just pop a reason. Not tough.
How do you forget the face in a photo you chose? Unless this experiment too covered SIX months .. well then of course you could dupe me into thinking I had said hello to him on my last visit to the lab LOL
Sorry if i made no sense .. I just found this piece so weak.
I do enjoy your pieces tho .. and continue reading .. the latest ones are quite sharp and insightful.
Cheers
So, basically, me simply saying “Because I like it.” when asked about my choices in art or games is more honest than making some shit up? I’m already used to that, so this is pretty nice to know.
Has it EVER been considered that over such time as 6 months preferrances change? Many a relationship which began as “OMG THIS IS FAB!!!” are over in 6 months or less – so I’m not surprised your “poster test” found the same results, it’s only sensible after all.
Of course, and then too won’t being forced to look at the same image daily for months usually alter the perceptions of the image for the viewer?
That the culture of the time of Moby Dick was decidely different both internally (personally) and externally (socially and education wise) from what it is today and that (in particular referrence to Moby) perhaps he was simply “ahead of his time?”
Education; alters perceptions – time; changes perceptions – emotional states; change perception – many things change perceptions – being asked to explain the perception has always changed the outcome of the result the same way what you tell MOM about what you did and why is never the same as the rationale you provide a “BF” and will again be different from the explaination you provide a prof, a clinician, and so forth; this does not make these numerous and varied explainations any less VALID; but instead calls into question the RELIABILITY – and indeed if someone was going to DO some actual research into something tangible rather than blowing theory out their arse perhaps and MAYBE the issue which you have hit upon is the equation which looks into the variables in those perceptions, behavious, and stances taken in regards to the various and differing people/positions of authority which hold sway over both cognition, and verbal representation of such.
The most interesting part of your “article” you didn’t even LOOK into, and that was WHY no one said “um that’s not the face I chose” but instead went OBEDIENTLY right along and CONFORMED to your expectations and questions without ever asking one of their own – namely: why did you switch the pic? ASSUMING this was not asked because no one realized you switched pics this says you have a bunch of terribly damaged folk on your hands who have facial recognition issues OR people so eager to please you and get the test fee they don’t pressure you – OR – we’re back to the question I pointed out earlier and the fact you omit most groups of people from whom you would rather probably of GOT a better view from – ie best friend … which is to say should you of done this test in pairs of pals and asked them after choosing the poster to get together and chat about their choice and why it was made, and I’m betting the answers you would of obtained would not have matched that which was provided your “clinical tester” all in all the article is a waste of data and time, it’s without any strength and littered with weakness’ from a purely scientific point of view you tossed up how many words and in the end said absolutely nothing. Congrats – you win the “razzle dazzle award of the day” … baffle em with bullshit, and hope they never catch wise.
WHERE IS THE MEAT OF THIS ARTICLE?!? Where is YOUR explaination, your actual scientific as opposed to anecdotal tests? Other than anecdotal information and hypothesis I see no MEAT to go with your ketchup.
So I draw and paint and screen print and do sculpture and ceramics and stuff, like an artist (I think that term is weird)… So when I see a painting I feel like I really can describe how I see it and how I like it. Like that deviant art picture, I don’t really like it so I look to see all of the ways that I don’t like it. But then I start thinking about the small ways that I do like it, but I still generally don’t like it.
But is it also possible for the reverse of this? Like instead of me seeing something and describing my feelings, me having feelings about something then making it to something visual. . .
And that person who made the picture, don’t they having ideas and thoughts about their own picture?
Well now that I think about it a little I usually make a piece but don’t know why or how the idea happened. I’ll think of a weird like meaning for it after I finish the piece, and those explanations usually seem like a lie. But people still ask for a meaning or for me to describe my feelings of the piece anyway.
Well nonetheless I really enjoyed reading the article. I enjoy reading all of your articles actually. Thank you.
And if anyone reads this, I’m sorry for the poor grammar, spelling, and all that. And for everything that I’ve said to just be so poorly phrased
I wonder what would happen if the Poster experiment were run slightly differently. Both groups pick a poster, but then members of one group are asked to explain their choices after the fact. What does that do to their rating of their poster six months later?
Agreed with everything except the last sentence.
“Chances are though, no one can truly explain why.”
Do not assume because research shows most people WON’T means nobody CAN. First of all, that’s a negative hypothesis, and secondly, it’s a logical fallacy called “hasty generalization.”
David, you are not so smart. :)
Don’t really agree with this one. It depends on who you’re asking.. some people can better articulate why they like something and others can’t – probably it’s because it’s something they’ve never thought about. But for those that understand art/design/music etc or have studied these things, it’s easy to articulate why we prefer one painting over another.
Also, I think people with higher IQ can better articulate why they like something than people of lower IQ. Basically comes down to how well you can communicate ideas/feelings/abstract concepts to another person.
Also, I would have picked the cat poster, it’s cuter.
Strongly agreed, Katie.
I subscribed to this comment thread and kind of wish I hadn’t, because every time I get an email about a new post I’m reminded of how much I don’t like what I said above. I think I was wrong. I think I even sounded like a butthead. So there’s that.
Thank you for writing this.
I plan on throwing the link to this page in the face of everyone who puts a hand on their hip and demands to know WHY I listen to metal music, or watch anime, or play video games, or like asian girls.
It’s so annoying that I can’t like what I like openly without people being so rude and telling me that I’m wrong for having preferences that aren’t “normal”.
Anyone who can’t explain why they liked the poster of the painting so they picked the cat is just a moron with minimal knowledge of verbal expression. And Moby Dick sucks.
I think people continue to like the first selection(unexplained) exactly for the reason that they can’t explain why they like it. It continues to provide pleasure because of the mystery of why they like it. The cat poster, easy to explain, loses its utility in short order. The same is true for long term relationships–a little mystery keeps the relationship fresher longer.
This probably has a lot to do with the fact that people believe it *should* be relatively easy to explain why you like something, so their answers are hastily and superficially cobbled together
Excellent article.
“Is there a certain song you love, or a work of art?
Perhaps there is a movie you keep returning to over the years, or book.
Go ahead and imagine one of those favorite things. Now, in one sentence, try to explain why you like it.
Chances are, you will find it difficult to put into words…”
This article is a complete generalization, you’ll get a different kind of answer from every person you ask. Some will say “just cuz” and others will easily go on for an hour about why they like a piece of art.
And then when you ask them again a month later they go on for an hour with totally different reasons though. I watch Aliens at least once a Month but I have no idea why , I just do . It is a generalization and he never claimed that his article was science incarnate anyways, but fact is… it’s still totally true !
“It also makes things like focus groups and market analysis seem like farts in the wind.”
Awesome :)
This reminds me of a section in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink. It talks about the difficulties that the artist Kenna had getting his music accepted by the record companies even though people really liked his music. To get the attention of these companies one had to get into the Top 10 list on Radio. When the radios surveyed people and asked them what they thought about Kenna’s songs, they could not explain why they liked his music. So Kenna did not get good radio reviews despite the fact people liked his music.
I would hardly call this a conclusive finding; there are only three sources, two of which come from the same researcher. If I wanted to prove the exact opposite point, I could very easily do so with 3 of my own sources. A critical analysis of the research, corroborated with the scientific community to lead to a definitive explanation of this mental phenomenon and it’s validity is required. This article is, as is, merely a summary of a few data points, not anything resembling a unanimously agreed upon, established factual statement. I think there is too much of this, to be frank; while the researchers and scientists have a responsibility to be thorough in their studies, it is also the responsibility of journalists and writers to investigate the truth and, should the truth not yet be apparent due to the machinations of the scientific method and process, to not publish any work on it whatsoever. They should not just regurgitate the points of a paper or scientific journal in a nice way, regardless of what they say or if their contents are factual. This is all contingent, of course, upon the fact that there is only 3 sources. If there are other sources at your disposal to explain your viewpoint, I would be interested in seeing them.
That being said, it is quite a well written article. Grabbed my attention and kept it throughout; excellent work.
Hi, a bit late but just found this! I agree with a lot that you claim, but I am a 53 year old artist and have given up trying to “fit in” I find the tree image to be mundane and vapid, looking at, I keep hoping something will happen; lightening, wind, a fairy landing in it, anything. Its “pretty” but not interesting. Many websites tell you what others have viewed so most want to see it too. It could be that it has just gone “viral” which doesn’t always imply “good.” I have studied marketing/advertising/promo so I realize that some things can cause an emotional response that is inexplicable. But I do try to understand what I like and for what reasons. BTW, I hate the “In the Arms of the Angels” commercial about abused animals, I am sorry for the animals and I contribute to animal care locally and spoil my pets, but I don’t like the TV trying to illicit a response such as the one intended, (hurt animals, starving children, destroyed homes, pick one) when most of the charities are corrupt.