RobinZ comments on Bizarre Illusions - Less Wrong

11 Post author: MrHen 27 January 2010 06:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (305)
Tags: illusion puzzle map territory reality

Comments (305)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MrHen 27 January 2010 10:45:56PM 2 points [-]

As others have pointed out, the difficulty here is more in the semantics of "color" than in the optics.

Yeah. I missed the semantic shift. All it took was someone pointing out that there were two uses of Color drifting around and almost all the comments snapped back into making sense.

I'm sorry if this is a big distraction from the point of your post. I'm still interested in the point, so perhaps you can find another way of getting it across.

The point is that an illusion generally gives off a sense of bizarreness because we are expecting X but the illusion gives us Y. In the case of the color example, I once expected boxes A and B to appear to be the same color (perceived) if and only if they were the same color (RGB). The illusion shows this is not the case. Being curious, I sought to understand the underlying principles behind why we perceive two different colors. Once this is understood, the illusion should no longer seem bizarre but a trivial example of the underlying principles.

In trying to find where I went wrong with the post, I come up with this:

  • "Color" is an extremely ambiguous term. I should have seen this one coming.
  • I think some people thought I was trying to give an explanation of the illusion in the post. I was not.
  • I think some people thought I was saying that the visual system itself was stupid or broken and we needed to "fix" our brain to adjust for its shortcomings. I was not. I was trying to say that our feeling of "bizarre" was stupid because we are expecting something different from our visual system than what the visual system provides.
  • I deliberately wrote this post more aggressively and concisely than I generally write. Perhaps this degraded its clarity even further.

I am half tempted to take this post down, rewrite it, and put it back up, but I don't know how much that would help.

Comment author: RobinZ 27 January 2010 11:16:56PM *  0 points [-]

I am half tempted to take this post down, rewrite it, and put it back up, but I don't know how much that would help.

Taking this and SilasBarta's thoughts together: can you apply this same meta-principle to something substantially different in a new post, written with a recognition of these confusions? That post could cite this post with a "Followup to:" line, and elaborate on your discovery in some way.

Comment author: MrHen 27 January 2010 11:23:42PM 0 points [-]

Would it be better to just replace the content of this post? I can archive the original in a comment here for future context.

Comment author: RobinZ 28 January 2010 03:06:52AM 4 points [-]

I would be disinclined to that course, but hard-pressed to justify it more effectively than by my idiosyncratic generalization of one of a number of principles I have heard - I quote from the post:

Don't try to rewrite history. Look, we make mistakes. We all do. Sometimes we post an essay and we get stuff wrong in it. Sometimes that stuff makes the whole essay wrong. Sometimes, we put up an essay innocently and it turns into a firestorm of controversy we never meant. Sometimes, we find ourselves in a crucible on all sides.

The temptation is to go back. Revise. Reword what we said. Take the essay down entirely.

It is never a good idea. Ever.

I don't think you have anything to be ashamed of in this post. It's not deep, it's not extraordinary in its conclusions, but it is correct and brief. The complaints seem to me best addressed by elaboration and discussion - things which require far more than a brief edit placed at the end of the post.

As SilasBarta mentioned, there's a lot of commentary on this post that is worth preserving, and should be preserved with the original post. It would be unfair to the commenters to render their comments incomprehensible - even briefly - by distortion of that to which they responded.

And, if I may be frank, if the idea which inspired this post is interesting, it is probably capable of generalization. The idea of my own which I promoted to a post I did so because I saw that it was applicable beyond the scope of its origination, and in a manner which was natural, elegant, and interesting. It proved of interest to a number of people here, despite its unabashedly algebraic treatment. If you can find a profitable extension of your concept, it will be likely to be worth reporting in a followup post (and if you are concerned about the appropriateness of it, I - as one remaining upvoter of the OP - will have sent my email to you in a PM, and be willing to comment on any draft you wish to send).

If you cannot find a profitable extension of your concept, it is probably not worth the time to revise. Consider your post dubiously successful (it is still in positive territory, is it not?) and leave it be.

Comment author: MrHen 28 January 2010 03:50:47AM 1 point [-]

I don't think you have anything to be ashamed of in this post. It's not deep, it's not extraordinary in its conclusions, but it is correct and brief. The complaints seem to me best addressed by elaboration and discussion - things which require far more than a brief edit placed at the end of the post.

It's not so much that I am ashamed; I am just frustrated. The behavior of this post caught me completely off-guard. It was upvoted to +5 within a few hours and people started asking questions. After my responses, the post dropped to +1. The karma itself doesn't mean much to me, but the feedback here was evidence of something greater than a non-interesting or incorrect post.

People were willing to talk about it, so I stuck it out for as much feedback as I could. The investment was completely worth it. I got several comments worth of extremely valuable insights to my writing style and how to better post here at LessWrong.

I think the post itself failed, but the whole experience has been a net gain.

As SilasBarta mentioned, there's a lot of commentary on this post that is worth preserving, and should be preserved with the original post. It would be unfair to the commenters to render their comments incomprehensible - even briefly - by distortion of that to which they responded.

I agree. My intent in the revisions has been to keep people from being distracted by my quirks and leading them into a wonderful discussion in the comments. This particular illusion has a lot more history behind it than I originally thought; I learned a lot.

And, if I may be frank, if the idea which inspired this post is interesting, it is probably capable of generalization. The idea of my own which I promoted to a post I did so because I saw that it was applicable beyond the scope of its origination, and in a manner which was natural, elegant, and interesting. It proved of interest to a number of people here, despite its unabashedly algebraic treatment. If you can find a profitable extension of your concept, it will be likely to be worth reporting in a followup post (and if you are concerned about the appropriateness of it, I - as one remaining upvoter of the OP - will have sent my email to you in a PM, and be willing to comment on any draft you wish to send).

Thank you very much. I have to sit on the events of today and ponder if there is a next step to take. If a followup is coming I will certainly take you up on your offer.

Comment author: RobinZ 28 January 2010 03:19:53AM 0 points [-]

An addendum - as far as my recollection of the original goes, your edits appear reasonable, although I would not have risked them on my own post. I congratulate you on a successful revision, but my offer stands.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit