Há anos li um texto, (era capaz de jurar que o li em "Thinking, Fast and Slow" de Daniel Kahneman...mas também poderia tê-lo lido em "Risk Savvy: How To Make Good Decisions" ou em "Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making" de Gerd Gigerenzer), que ilustrava como duas pessoas observando o mesmo jogo, observando as mesmas imagens, chegavam a conclusões honestas completamente diferentes porque cada uma processava as imagens de forma diferente em função da sua preferência clubística.
Como não recordar as palavras equivocadas do candidato Cavaco Silva:
"dois adultos, (de boa-fé acrescentava eu, perante os mesmos factos chegam às mesmas conclusões"
Assim, foi com um sorriso que encontrei estes trechos em "Pre-suasion":
"Imagine that you are in a café enjoying a cup of coffee. At the table directly in front of you, a man and a woman are deciding which movie to see that evening. After a few minutes, they settle on one of the options and set off to the theater. As they leave, you notice that one of your friends had been sitting at the table behind them. Your friend sees you, joins you, and remarks on the couple’s movie conversation, saying, “It’s always just one person who drives the decision in those kinds of debates, isn’t it?” You laugh and nod because you noticed that too: although the man was trying to be diplomatic about it, he clearly was the one who determined the couple’s movie choice. Your amusement disappears, though, when your friend observes, “She sounded sweet, but she just pushed until she got her way.”O que pensar dos programas sobre repetição de imagens de lances polémicos no futebol?
Dr. Shelley Taylor, a social psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), knows why you and your friend could have heard the same conversation but come to opposite judgments about who determined the end result. It was a small accident of seating arrangements: you were positioned to observe the exchange over the shoulder of the woman, making the man more visible and salient, while your friend had the reverse point of view. Taylor and her colleagues conducted a series of experiments in which observers watched and listened to conversations that had been scripted carefully so that neither discussion partner contributed more than the other. Some observers watched from a perspective that allowed them to see the face of one the parties over the shoulder of the other, while other observers saw both faces from the side, equally. All the observers were then asked to judge who had more influence in the discussion, based on tone, content, and direction. The outcomes were always the same: whomever’s face was more visible was judged to be more causal.
No matter what they tried, the researchers couldn’t stop observers from presuming that the causal agent in the interaction they’d witnessed was the one whose face was most visible to them. They were astonished to see it appear in “practically unmovable” and “automatic” form, even when the conversation topic was personally important to the observers; even when the observers were distracted by the researchers; even when the observers experienced a long delay before judging the discussants; and even when the observers expected to have to communicate their judgments to other people. What’s more, not only did this pattern emerge whether the judges were male or female, but also it appeared whether the conversations were viewed in person or on videotape."