Perception is indeed always an interesting discussion topic. Whether perception is reality or perception isn’t reality is often a point of disagreement between two or more parties. An example provided in Wade Meredith’s article is Confirmation bias, which is the condition of misinterpreting information to support one’s conclusion. “The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.” (Wade Meredith, 2007) Interestingly, Confirmation bias is certainly a slippery slope. Whether the information is misinterpreted is based on the individual whom can clarify whether the intent in the language is accurately assumed or not.
For example, if a man thinks a woman is interested in him, he will look for cues that point to that conclusion. The woman could give the man clues to have him believe so, however should the woman change her mind then the conclusion is subject to Confirmation bias rather the initial correct interpretation. The situation may become a classic he said, she said to which neither party is ultimately right or wrong, unless one looks at the language as a measure of possible sentiment.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ethics & Neutrality, Psychology & Identity".
Whether one is right or wrong is generally a temporary condition. Being right or wrong is similar to a war in perpetuity, any one battle may be won or lost but winning and losing are at an impasse. If you think you’re right, you may have inherent self-bias via any number of irrational arguments as described within Meredith’s blog. Contrarily, if you think you’re wrong, the same anti-conditions as antitheses apply to the erroneous belief of being inferior or of being incorrect. The combination of any number of the 26 biases presented by Meredith can yield a host of incorrect assumptions or indeed can support any number of correct assumptions.
What if a group of individuals consistently fall prey to such biases like Information bias, which adds no value but perceptively creates an alternative reality? Or the Loss aversion, which forces individuals to cut losses rather than seek gains? Arguably, irrational is a term capable of covering these inherent biases as the interpretation itself is not erroneous. Perception of language and semantics can be used to be intentionally misleading. If one intends to mislead, then the individual is indeed picking up correctly on subtleties in language and is not committing any bias error. The misleader is committing Selective perception to commit error bias.
The blog focuses on human judgment in a manner that provides self-correcting bias as a means to convey how individuals want to see the glass half full, so to speak. Some may say, individuals wish to be delusional should their perception become inherently biased. Therefore, individuals are inherently biased toward committing judgment and perception bias. Either an individual seeks to become positively or negatively inclined with bias, and therefore any number of Meredith’s bias perceptions can obfuscate the underlying truth.
The Von Restorff effect is interesting as the odd man standing is the one most remembered is supported by this effect. Interesting articles of clothing support the Von Restorff effect by causing an individual to stand out based on dress inclusive of a peculiar choice of specific clothing attire. Therefore, when an individual shows up to a job interview in a piano design necktie, his intention, you would think, is to evoke the Von Restorff effect by causing the interviewer to remember him via the peculiar tie. By remembering the tie, the interviewer will likely recall the good parts of the interview rather any negative points. That is, if the interviewer likes the choice of tie.
