Perception, perception, perception...

This text is like an onion because it has multiple layers which are somehow very similar to the others and to the whole onion itself. However, each layer also carry some sort of uniqueness which somehow can align one to crack the code and understand the relationship within the layers through the whole onion and vice-versa.

So I'm presenting a set of cases that function as the layers of the onion and I'll draft both their similarities and their differences. Hopefully, that will allow me to give the reader a better understanding of both the onion and its sublayers, but also the difference between onion layers and non-onion layers.

I've always liked very much what's straight forward and clear. Daltonism test is a visual example of that. Depending on the numbers you see (or not) in the test, you can determine in a very simple and clear way whether or not you are color-blind. It can be influenced by non-relevant factors to what you want to learn with the test, such as the quality and conditions of the screen you're taking the test on. It can also potentially be influenced by the other components related to the computer video or even other factors that can indirectly affect the colors and patterns displayed on the computer screen. But as far as the observer is concerned, the test is well designed to be used with most people and it allows to draw some stable conclusions about a given specific individual.

Maybe I like these tests that much exactly because many of the relevant situations in life don't resemble them at all. Maybe that's why people in general really like them, although most of these people will find it very difficult to understand the underlying mechanism at work here. Understanding this mechanics is a double edged sword. On one hand, this awareness can make one realize that most of the situations in which she finds herself in everyday have a very small margin of control. On the other, people are required to make decisions all the time and we have been gifted or cursed with the ability to employ rational resources to make the ones that we feel will benefit us the most, directly, indirectly or both. So if we are biased towards thinking we have more control over the environment and situations that surround us, we'll also observe two opposite classes of effects: the feeling of more control over one's life is highly correlated to ones perceived quality of life. This phenomenon is actually pretty easy to understand in the positive way. Because, if effort is required from us in life to keep it going, it's very reassuring to have the feeling we can influence and even control the outcomes of what we do.

Only this is true to a very limited extent if we think statistically about the concrete world around. The interesting fact is that humans suck big time in consciously perceiving probabilities related phenomena. Therefore, objective mistakes in these terms are not only the most common case but actually the general rule of thumb. But because this reassuring effect of feeling in control is so important, human brains tend to ignore this very concrete piece of information and act if probability distributions were completely different. Or much worse, as if they were absolutely irrelevant to important decisions in life.

Now this could generate a tragic effect on people, because unexpected things are not only happening every now and then. They are happening all the time. But then we kept very primitive brain structures along with noble cortical ones. These old folks that take care of many of these very otherwise conscient mind boggling phenomena in a super fast and efficient way that we hardly notice. So despite the fact we consciously live some sort of self-generated ever occurring deception, we usually don't feel too much harm from that.

Now there's another fuzzy element. If we were able to see reality on a very objective light like we feel we can with the color blindness test, we'd soon enough realize the correlation between our desires, efforts and their outcomes have a real distribution that is absolutely incompatible with what we expect them to be. And then comes another really curious fact: that doesn't really matter, because our minds have the habit (that is very efficiently neutralized by the scientific method) to reshape our perceptions in order to better match our expectations. In other words, since we're not able to control the precise distance we can launch a ball on a court, our brain dynamically reshapes the results of our observations in order to make things smoother and more logical.

Some of these distortions, and this might have a lot to do with the way we evolved into highly social creatures or been a consequence of that, are shared among a large number of people. Because of that, and because these people cannot usually grasp what different people might actually perceive from the same phenomenon, a false truth can be born and raised quite easily.

Back to the colorblindness test, imagine that it didn't come with any instructions whatsoever. And imagine that people taking the test didn't know its mechanics and purpose of it. Very objectively, a large group of people (actually most of the human beings on Earth) would get to see the same numbers. However, color-blind people would consistently see different numbers. If you can anticipate where I'm heading to, it's not really hard to realize that the answer to the question "what can you see in this circle" will admit more than 1 correct answer. If you think about it philosophically, it actually admits endless right answers since there's a degree of clear subjectivity in the question itself.

However, if no disclaimer about what's supposed to happen to that perception is made, we tend to see the building of two mutually excluding groups of answers which are both essentially correct. But there's something very interesting behind this scenario. Almost everybody will be able to easily and consistently see a steady set of numbers in the test. Except that most of the population will see a set of numbers and a minority will see a different set or no number at all.

In the situation in which someone with authority will come and prompt people about the basics of what's going to happen, it's fairly easy to anticipate that rational beings won't try to prove other people wrong, because differences in perceptions is not only expected, it is the very value of the test in the first place. It's actually what makes a test out of the activity in the first place.

Now imagine instead of this disclaimer about a test to identify people's ability to see colors, people get prompted this is just an ordinary set of numbers. In this case, in case everyone is familiar with the symbols and if they share a common understanding of what numbers should look like, it's very likely that people will possibly disagree about which is the correct answer to that simple innocent question about seeing something inside of a circle.

Then suppose this is not just a matter of right and wrong. Imagine that there are all sorts of earthly benefits or disadvantages of seeing one set of numbers and not the others. This could actually be a test to keep color-blind people from accessing some sort of resources. As the non-color-blind are the vast majority, they could actually determine that seeing their right set of numbers is a condition for taking part on a particular social activity.

This could be done with some sort of coherent idea in mind like preventing color blind people from operating machinery in which inability to tell different colors could pose harm to them or to others. It could also be used as some sort of way of establishing "normal" ow "desired by majority"standards of perceptions. These could or could not be confused with the objective truth. It would depend on:

a. Is the group imposing the standards while being aware of the exact extent in which the test will identify a difference among people? If they know the fact that the test will essentially identify people that are not able to see colors in what's considered normal range among human beings, they will be already expecting to see different results and to tell they can be both correct since they change according to how people perceive colors. For those with this knowledge, the moral load attached to the answer will be close to 0, and it will be fairly easy to rationally avoid any sort of non-sensical and much wider perception of deviation in people seeing colors differently.

b. Now let's imagine the issue came up within a democratic context but there's no previous knowledge about what are the possible outcomes of the test and even less information about the underlying causes of each different scenario. In this case, it's not at all hard to imagine that the majority of the people could come to the conclusion the only right answer is the one shared by the majority itself. And this is something really easy and straight forward to determine. Then the problem is entirely different. Because there will be an answer which is widely considered to be consistently the correct one, and because of the lack of relevant knowledge about the underlying causes of the observed differences, people will certainly going to wonder why some people see one set of numbers, while much fewer people will say very candidly that the answer is completely different.

Let's approach the next layer of this onion: what is at stake here? Color-blindness is considered a fairly benign condition, since seeing colors usually won't prevent someone from performing daily necessary activities well enough. And it's clear that has to do with the characteristic of this particular individual or group but also to the conditions considered "normal" within a given society or smaller social group. If society had evolved to give lots of importance to color perception, and often used that everywhere at the space in which members of the group interact, color blindness could represent a highly disabling condition. Imagine if there was a deadly disease transmitted by a species of green mosquitoes. But also that there were identical red ones which were 10 thousand times more prevalent and completely harmless. In this case, ability to see colors would clearly represent a huge advantage.

Biological reasons are not the only relevant factor in determining disability level. Situation of color-blind people would vary a lot depending on the social conditions in which they find themselves. If they were the majority of the people, and they lived in a fairly democratic environment, the issue of not being able to tell the difference from a harmless mosquito and a deadly one might generate a series of social efforts due to its huge potential risk and harm to a very large chunk of the population. If there weren't any associated condition that could determine social exclusion, it's very likely there would be incentives for someone to:

a. Come up with a plan for solving the detection problem
b. To spend public money on its implementation

After these two steps, depending on how well the issue was tackled and the percentage of its efficient mitigation, it's quite possible the issue could be reassessed as something considerably less important, not only as a limitation for people that are color blind, but also the value of having a "better" color perception. It's easy to establish in this example that the extent of disability that will affect individuals is very much connected with:

a. how large and socially relevant is the population affected by a difference in the way they perceive a given aspect of current social reality

b. how large are the incentives for someone to individually or collectively generate and implement a solution for the problem at hand (item "a" is very important in determining item "b")

My example is hypothetical, but something really similar has actually happened with common vision impairments that can be effectively corrected (or mitigated) as long as the adequate lenses are utilized. If these conditions weren't so prevalent in socially relevant population, there might not have been enough incentives for the solution to materialize. Which would mean that a condition that today doesn't impose disability to the people that have then, could represent a severely incapacitating one.

Although I've discussed different cases of disability or potential disability, it's clear that human perception is the real core issue here. It's also the core issue on every case of social exclusion on the face of the Earth, explained by anatomic and physiological differences or not. The fact this problem structure is so widespread is not as astonishing as the fact this mechanism is almost always ignored by everyone, including those who suffer discrimination.

I must say it's very tough to acknowledge you are going to get worse life outcomes like income and health because of that structure. It's also more likely for you to get socially isolated, whether you deviate from the expected level of achievements characteristic to your social group or not. This reality is bitter, and it's not irrational to want to ignore all these issues and try to live your life the best way you can.

Unfortunately, this is not a very good option. We are social creatures above all, and it's natural to seek external references in life, especially when growing up. Therefore, I tend to believe that despite being something so bitter and unfair, it's important to be very candid about it from the very beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning beginning result in cognitive dissonances that can be far more destructive than the concrete conditions themselves. I feel more important than to generate more general awareness, it's critical to provide conditions for this awareness to be created very early.

The knowledge of the rationale for discrimination doesn't make the phenomenon lighter. But it creates the possibility of defense. It allows people to resist in mental clarity rather than being treated like garbage in utter mental confusion.