White perceptual supremacist babies

Yes, I am joking.


However, instincts and perceptual detail clue us into evolved needs.


the tribe over is a bigger threat to spot than someone one continent over.

On the positive side, it allows natural affection needs to be met. The Cinderella effect applies within a race, remember.


Basic primary colour perception varies by sex.


Basic. Red. Yellow. Blue. Rainbow colours. Not terracotta versus rust. [former is red-orange, latter more brown]
Primary colours too. So this would really throw the cat among the pigeons for any upper level function since a man and a woman can look at literally the same object, same section of the nm spectrum and still disagree/misperceive.

Not that it supports the “nothing is objective” philosophy. These things are quantifiable with optics. The difference is labelling and perception between sexes based on what their senses are capable of perceiving. Cat, pigeons.

Click on this to mix colours online and do a random sample of m/f friends: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=82d2083bea117b6f3e03d6426ba2d29f Women give more florid descriptions, men tend to be blunt. That might not be male simplicity or stupidity, as is often claimed, but a difference in colour processing in the brain. Women, being gatherers in tribal societies, required higher colour discrimination than men, who often only needed to catch what they were chasing. Lo and behold;

Guys’ eyes are more sensitive to small details and moving objects, while women are more perceptive to color changes, according to a new vision study that suggests men and women actually do see things differently.

Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the brain’s primary visual cortex. The development of these neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens when the embryo is developing into a fetus. [and according to pro-choice feminists, not really a person]

“We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females,” Abramov said. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.” [he says tongue firmly in cheek]

Vive la Evolution!

Now you see me, no, you don’t.

Humans don’t see as sharply for distant objects as we expect.

The psychologists have been using eye-tracking experiments to test their approach. Using the eye-tracking technique, eye movements are measured accurately with a specific camera which records 1000 images per second. In their experiments, the scientists have recorded fast balistic eye movements (saccades) of test persons. Though most of the participants did not realise it, certain objects were changed during eye movement. The aim was that the test persons learn new connections between visual stimuli from inside and outside the fovea, in other words from detailed and coarse impressions. Afterwards, the participants were asked to judge visual characteristics of objects outside the area of the fovea. The result showed that the connection between a coarse and detailed visual impression occurred after just a few minutes. The coarse visual impressions became similar to the newly learnt detailed visual impressions.

“The experiments show that our perception depends in large measure on stored visual experiences in our memory,” says Arvid Herwig. According to Herwig and Schneider, these experiences serve to predict the effect of future actions (“What would the world look like after a further eye movement”). In other words: “We do not see the actual world, but our predictions.”

We see what we expect. The brain plugs in the gaps of our raw perception. Kinda like an optical illusion.
I’ve long believed this, and the best explanation I can come up with is another adaptive function for microsaccades, blurring the rough sections to make the distant objects seem clearer (and more real), in a similar way to a cartoon depicting a human figure.

Time flies, unless you’re rich


A new study titledĀ “Power and Time Availability” by the University of California Berkeley has found that the more power you possess, the more time you feel like you have at your disposal. The study asked a few hundred people, some primed as “bosses,” and others as “employees,” to fill out surveys about how much time they felt they had to complete a specific set of brain teasers. They found that the “bosses” often thought they could pack more tasks in to a finite amount of time,