petter johansson

petter johansson.png

intro’d to Petter via his November 2016 at TEDxUppsalaUniversity –

Experimental psychologist Petter Johansson researches choice blindness — a phenomenon where we convince ourselves that we’re getting what we want, even when we’re not. In an eye-opening talk, he shares experiments (designed in collaboration with magicians!) that aim to answer the question: Why do we do what we do? The findings have big implications for the nature of self-knowledge and how we react in the face of manipulation. You may not know yourself as well as you think you do.

Do you really know why you do what you do?

[https://www.ted.com/talks/petter_johansson_do_you_really_know_why_you_do_what_you_do]

if there’s no diff between a real choice and a manipulated choice.. perhaps we make things up all the time..

krishnamurti free will law

people often tend to prefer the alt.. that they were led to believe that they liked..

this is the effect we call choice blindness.. 

perhaps why.. most of us are not us..  and perhaps our biggest problem today..

johansson choice blindness law

what you all want to know.. does this extend to more complex issues.. like those concerning moral/political issues..

what we find is not too many of these changes are detected..  we managed to switch 90% of participants.. right to left and left to right..

clearly affected by questionaire in voting.. voting poles say.. group they’re looking for are the uncertain.. and here.. we’re showing larger number of decideds shifted

if you can get people to see the opposite view and engage in a sort of convo w selves.. that could actually make them change..

a lot of what we call self knowledge.. is really self interpretation..

so i see myself try to make a choice.. then when i’m asked why.. i try to make as much sense of it as possible.. w an explanation.. but we do this so quick and w such ease that we think that we actually know the answer when we answer why..

as an interpretation.. we sometimes make mistakes..

so beware when you ask people why.. ie: why stay w job.. in relationship.. because in asking you may actually create a attitude that wasn’t there before you asked..

huge.. w ie: stu voice.. et al..

could be bad.. but also good.. ie: we are actually more flexible than we think.. we can change our minds.. and.. if in convo.. can change others

changing minds is great.. the danger is when we think we’re being truthful.. truly free.. when too often.. we’ve been manipulated.. intentionally or not..

w my partner..  the good – getting rid of the need to stay consistent

so.. know that you don’t know yourself.. or at least as well as you think you do

again.. this is huge.. we need all of us being truly free to be ourselves..  in order to get to the sync of our one ness.. and so .. to be the change we need so desperately today..

which begs a mech to facil both: that free whimsy.. changing everyday..  and.. authenticity/eudaimonia

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

__________

find/follow Petter:

on lund uni site:

http://www.fil.lu.se/en/person/PetterJohansson/

https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lucat/user/304b891a8a25d87f58c76a7421607abd

the choice blindness lab:

http://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/

We’re a research lab at Lund University Cognitive Science that studies questions concerning the role of external feedback for cognitive processes ranging from preferences and attitudes to emotion and speech production. The lab uses a variety of experimental methods, including magical self-transforming surveys, real-time speech exchange, and gaze-contingent manipulation of decision times. The primary tool of the lab, from which it also gathers its name, is the Choice Blindness paradigm.

[..]

This finding indicates that people are not continuously monitoring their own voice to make sure that it meets a predetermined emotional target. Instead, as a consequence of listening to their altered voices, the emotional state of the participants changed in congruence with the emotion portrayed, which was measured by both self-report and skin conductance level. This change is the first evidence, to our knowledge, of peripheral feedback effects on emotional experience in the auditory domain. As such, our result reinforces the wider framework of self-perception theory: that we often use the same inferential strategies to understand ourselves as those that we use to understand others.

__________

pluralistic ignorance

manufactured consent ness

voluntary compliance ness

simulated thinking

black science of people/whales law

maté trump law

_________