Cognitive bias and the "thirds" rule

Topics relating to Advanced Driving in cars
ancient
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Masters assessment

Postby ancient » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:27 pm

Horse wrote:
ancient wrote:
Rolyan wrote:+1

Plus, he said that there was no point whatsoever in developing observation. All he needed to look at was the distance he could stop in at his speed. so travelling at 30mph, he only needed to know what was happening 75 feet away.

Now that explains a lot ... an awful lot!


It's an interesting viewpoint (sic), because the things that are going to get you are, by and large, those closer to you (by definition, really, because if they're not close then they are unlikely to be in collision with you). So if someone drives in such a manner that they can stop if necessary, then shouldn't that be applauded? It's all well and having great observation skills and seeing a hazard approaching from space ;) , but that's a 'nice' rather than a 'necessary'.

Oh I love watching that xx feet in front of my bonnet, always so empty (fails to notice the pedestrian running towards the road from the park)- Bang ... Must have been a branch striking my wing mirror.

Oh I love watching that xx feet in front of my bonnet, always so empty. There's a cyclist in there now ... Bl@@dy cyclists, I'll just overtake. Oh there's a traffic jam (my side turning/a red light etc) ahead. Anchors on then.

Oh I love watching that xx feet in front of my bonnet, always so empty. At this low speed I may as well check my phone, I wonder whether what that text was about... creeps along, checks the next 8 foot ahead then back to the 'phone (fails to notice the child come from the side and cross below bonnet level)

etc ... but you knew that already :lol: . As I said, it explains an awful lot.

Gareth
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:44 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Gareth » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:49 pm

Horse wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote: Sir John Whitmore advocates scanning as far ahead as possible and trusting your peripheral vision to take care of the stuff closer to the car.

Like in the 'gorilla' video? ;)

Are they comparable?
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Strangely Brown » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote: Sir John Whitmore advocates scanning as far ahead as possible and trusting your peripheral vision to take care of the stuff closer to the car.

Like in the 'gorilla' video? ;)

Are they comparable?


Only if you're hung up on concentrating at distance rather than scanning to distance.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Horse » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:33 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote: Sir John Whitmore advocates scanning as far ahead as possible and trusting your peripheral vision to take care of the stuff closer to the car.

Like in the 'gorilla' video? ;)

Are they comparable?


Only if you're hung up on concentrating at distance rather than scanning to distance.


Ooh rude :(

Well, none so blind as . . . :roll: :lol:

It's fairly simple: if you look for *something* then your attention will be on that task, so you're less likely to see something you're *not* looking for. Here you are, it's from the relatively reliable BBC, so you don't need to trust me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21466529

Perhaps try taking suggestions seriously rather than just removing the urine? :drums: :drool: :facepalm:
My own views. For better or worse :)

Gareth
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:44 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Gareth » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:09 pm

Horse wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:Like in the 'gorilla' video? ;)

Are they comparable?

if you look for *something* then your attention will be on that task, so you're less likely to see something you're *not* looking for.

My point was that the 'gorilla' video is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional scene and, like many activities where the viewer isn't directly involved, the viewer is a passive actor.

Driving is somewhat different in that the 'viewer' is fully participating in the 'scene'. More to the point, if they are zen-like looking to the distance and letting peripheral vision deal what's closer, the subconscious is looking for oddnesses and, as the driver's viewpoint changes, there's much greater opportunity for the pattern recognition to flag something up. Hazards 'appear' out of edges, and the changing edges will be repeatedly evaluated.
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Horse » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:34 pm

Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:Like in the 'gorilla' video? ;)

Are they comparable?

if you look for *something* then your attention will be on that task, so you're less likely to see something you're *not* looking for.

My point was that the 'gorilla' video is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional scene and, like many activities where the viewer isn't directly involved, the viewer is a passive actor.

Driving is somewhat different in that the 'viewer' is fully participating in the 'scene'. More to the point, if they are zen-like looking to the distance and letting peripheral vision deal what's closer, the subconscious is looking for oddnesses and, as the driver's viewpoint changes, there's much greater opportunity for the pattern recognition to flag something up. Hazards 'appear' out of edges, and the changing edges will be repeatedly evaluated.


The 'depth' is irrelevant, perhaps the link I posted to an x-ray might have done a bit more than hint at that! :)
My own views. For better or worse :)

User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Cognitive bias and the "thirds" rule

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:35 pm

This thread has now been split off KevT's "Masters Assessment" one. Please do not return to that thread and drag it off topic even more.
Nick

Gareth
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:44 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Gareth » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:54 pm

Horse wrote:The 'depth' is irrelevant, perhaps the link I posted to an x-ray might have done a bit more than hint at that! :)

My point isn't depth, more that depth with movement makes a constantly changing scene with more evaluating possibilities.

Addressing the link, it was talking about looking for things as if it's not possible to look for nothing in particular.
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Horse » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
Horse wrote:
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
Horse wrote:<a diagram of possible cognitive bias traps>

So that's a list of the pitfalls - surely what would now be useful, instead of reams of psychology techno-jargon, would be some helpful tips to avoid them, in the riding / driving world?


Well, there's the one I mentioned earlier . . . if 'progress' and 'overtaking' or any variations on a theme are mentioned as positives or assessment criteria, then it's likely that drivers will be looking for evidence to support their intention to carry out those actions.

Hmmm. That seems to be you seeking confirmation of your views. Do you never make progress or carry out overtakes then, in case your brain is making you over-confident?


Thanks for splitting this off. It's reminded me I hadn't answered this question. I've been giving it some thought.

I think - and I've only been thinking about this while 'parked' at home - that I work forwards, foreground to far. If the near has potential trouble then that takes priority for attention and sets the limit for speed.

Does that mean that I don't look to the distance? Of course I do :) Into the distance, glances across views etc. But . . . I don't use those long continuous views in any 'thirds'-style manner. Perhaps because I've never been taught it or really understood the explanations I've read.

How do I avoid cognitive bias? I can't. Neither can you or anyone else here. But return to my description above; I'm looking for reasons *not* to go faster rather than saying to myself "I could use thirds here". In fact, that's effectively what I did think when I tried it - it didn’t feel 'right' setting the distance as a target and, at that early time and position, determining a single plan. Yes, I accept and understand that no-one using thirds, or looking to overtake, or just wanting to get a move on, will be ignoring the foreground. That's not the point.*

The point is that your intention affects your decision through confirmation bias - you mentally cherry pick information which supports, confirms, the decision you want to take.

* That said, it's simple and well-known that one of the effects of travelling faster is that it's more difficult to see what's closer-to.
My own views. For better or worse :)

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Masters assessment

Postby Horse » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:27 pm

Gareth wrote:
Horse wrote:The 'depth' is irrelevant, perhaps the link I posted to an x-ray might have done a bit more than hint at that! :)

My point isn't depth, more that depth with movement makes a constantly changing scene with more evaluating possibilities.

Addressing the link, it was talking about looking for things as if it's not possible to look for nothing in particular.


And when driving, do you wait blankly for things to happen, or do you look for things, search for them? Those doctors were looking, but because their focus was on one thing [cancer] they missed something else in clear sight. So yes, the two gorillas are linked.

And that's proven in the driving context - see the 'sofa' Dropbox link I posted. People see what they expect to see. Research into driver behaviour at junctions showed that novice drivers had better search patterns than experienced drivers, who only looked where they expected to see approaching vehicles.
My own views. For better or worse :)


Return to “Advanced Driving - Cars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests