On 14 Feb 2013 at 21:38, Stuart McKelvie wrote:

> The immediate question that came to mind was "If 83% of radiologists
> did not see the gorilla, what was the rate for non-radiologists?"

In the discussion of this topic, it seems to me there's an implicit 
assumption that not seeing the gorilla is a bad thing; that 
radiologists, whose business it is to see things in an X-ray, 
_should_ have seen the gorilla if psychology hadn't messed them up. 

I disagree. Their business is not to see gorillas but to see cancer. 
Their skill is at least partly in knowing how to ignore informatiion 
not relevant to the critical task (detecting gorillas), and 
maximizing success at what they're being paid for: to find cancer.

It's perhaps an illustration of the fact that multi-tasking may well 
be an illusion (reference, please). If you're going to waste your 
detection abilities by being distracted by irrelevancies, you're 
going to be a lousy reader of X-rays for medical purposes. I'd prefer 
to have my X-rays read by someone who's not also looking for Jesus 
and gorillas at the same time. So the flip side of inattention 
blindness (for gorillas) is attention eagle eye (for cancer). 

A related argument is that if you told radiologists to "find the 
gorilla", they'd undoubtedly have little trouble with the task, given 
that set (cue). But show them an X-ray of a lung, and they start with 
another set, namely, "find the cancer". In fact, this argument leads 
to a different prediction,  that radiologists may be _less_ likely to 
see gorillas than non-radiologists. (Unfortunately, Stuart's 
(limited) data tends not to support this.)

OK, I thought of a study which may be related. I believe (which means 
I don't have the reference handy) that expert chess players have an 
advantage over dull normals in memorizing chess board positions. But 
their advantage requires that real chess board positions be used; 
given random placement of pieces, they do no better than controls.  
So it  may be with radiologists, for whom an X-ray has special 
meaning in terms of cancer. To the rest of us, it's a bunch of blobs, 
which could just as well be a gorilla as cancer.  

Stephen
--------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.          
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada               
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
---------------------------------------------


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=23740
or send a blank email to 
leave-23740-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to