Okay. I read the study and now I get it. That is crazy. I didn't notice the gorilla and I just thought the lungs looked bad the way they were. Haha. Good thing I'm not a radiologist. It is interesting though. I can believe that people can just "miss" things right in front of them. Anyone with children has experienced that. My kids are experts at "missing" what is right in front of them. If I had a nickel for every, "but I didn't see it...".
Pretty good, right? We just laughed and laughed. 83% missing it is huge! A guy in our ward is in the same program Mike was in at Wash U. He spoke on Sunday and said in his talk about how the first few years were spent looking at all normal scans, etc. That they had to first learn what was normal, so that then anything abnormal would just jump out at them later. Only I guess that doesn't apply to images with gorillas in them. ;) Here's the original study the article was referring to: http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo I learned about that one in psychology and it's a pretty good one. Just less percentage of people missing it. We miss you all!
seriously? Gorillas? seriously? If there were a rash of new gorilla diseases that presented with baby gorillas in the lungs I am sure people would be on the lookout for them. Otherwise, I think we will be just fine with missing the gorilla and finding the cancer. :-)
5 comments:
I need more of an explanation. I don't think the picture looks too good. I'd be concerned if that were my e-ray.
Okay. I read the study and now I get it. That is crazy. I didn't notice the gorilla and I just thought the lungs looked bad the way they were. Haha. Good thing I'm not a radiologist. It is interesting though. I can believe that people can just "miss" things right in front of them. Anyone with children has experienced that. My kids are experts at "missing" what is right in front of them. If I had a nickel for every, "but I didn't see it...".
Pretty good, right? We just laughed and laughed. 83% missing it is huge! A guy in our ward is in the same program Mike was in at Wash U. He spoke on Sunday and said in his talk about how the first few years were spent looking at all normal scans, etc. That they had to first learn what was normal, so that then anything abnormal would just jump out at them later. Only I guess that doesn't apply to images with gorillas in them. ;) Here's the original study the article was referring to: http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo
I learned about that one in psychology and it's a pretty good one. Just less percentage of people missing it. We miss you all!
Mike would have seen it - he's one of the 17% :)
seriously? Gorillas? seriously? If there were a rash of new gorilla diseases that presented with baby gorillas in the lungs I am sure people would be on the lookout for them. Otherwise, I think we will be just fine with missing the gorilla and finding the cancer. :-)
Post a Comment