Hi James M. Clark Professor & Chair of Psychology [email protected] Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 0R4 CANADA
>>> <[email protected]> 15-Feb-13 1:09 AM >>> 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. JC: My comment earlier was on this point. Do radiologists confirm that lung is cancer free and all areas are healthy (which they could not do for the gorilla-covered area or for "natural" flaws in images if such occur), or do they simply detect cancerous regions (which again would be unknown for any hidden area on the image). So unless they can detect flawed sections of the image, their judgments must be compromised by imperfect images. Perhaps they are also attuned for expected flaws as well as cancer indicators, but are not attuned for gorillas. What would happen if you simply asked ... is this a high quality image? or ... are there any flaws in this image? Take care Jim --- 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=23746 or send a blank email to leave-23746-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>
