How Do We See What We See?
1944
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-1944,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0.1,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1200,qode-theme-ver-29.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.8.0,vc_responsive

How Do We See What We See?

How Do We See What We See?

December 20, 2013

Ever since I heard long ago that “Eskimos have 100 words for snow” I’ve been fascinated by how we see, and the ways that our culture and language inter-relate with our perceptions. Never mind that the “words for snow” claim has been questioned and debated for more than half a century, just the idea of it stirs all sorts of creative possibilities for exploring human life-as-lived.

Once you think about it, isn’t it obvious that what we see is intimately connected to how we see? And that how we see is intimately related to how human history, the time and place in which we live, and our unique place within the world has socialized us? Including making the assumption that how we see is the same for everyone, even if what we see differs.

When I used to teach human development to college students, I’d ask them to watch Hollywood films with different “glasses” on—to try to see the way a Freudian, or a Piagetian, or a Skinnerian, or a Vygotskian would see. The classroom conversations were extremely rich, as not only did this exercise help students understand the theorists, it also made them realize that there are different ways to see and they began to explore the implications of that for how we approach and relate to ourselves, each other and the stuff that makes up our worlds.

No doubt we’ve all been in conversations when somebody points out that Person A sees the glass half full and Person B sees it half empty. Fine, as far as it goes. But rarely, if ever, does someone point out that both Person A and Person B see a glass! Or at least we assume they do.

Lately I’ve been reading some of the books written by people diagnosed on the autism spectrum (in addition to Temple Grandin’s Thinking in Pictures and numerous other books, the more recent Naoki Higashida’s The Reason I Jump and Daniel Tammet’s Born On a Blue Day). These memoirs are supplementing the insights I’ve been getting from rereading Lev Vygotsky’s writings on “defectology” from the early 20th century, as well as inspired current day discussions of “extranormal” people by colleague Peter Smagorinsky,  professor at the University of Georgia.

I’m half way through Tammet’s Born on a Blue Day (subtitled Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant) and enjoying it immensely. Tammet is a young man who credits his large and supportive family to his growth and satisfying life as someone with Asperger’s syndrome and an extraordinary relationship with numbers. He’s become somewhat of a celebrity with bestselling books, documentary films, awards from honorary and literary societies, speaking engagements and a website where people can ask him questions. I was taken by a line in the Acknowledgements where he thanks a friend or acquaintance “for showing me the power of enthusiasm.”

In their efforts to share (socialize) their ways of seeing, these authors allow us to get to know some very interesting people and discover a new richness of what it is to be human. For me, these authors are also inviting us to become aware of and take a hard look at the assumptions that underlie how we perceive, believe and understand. For they do not see the glass.

To get a sense of what and how they do see, read their books

9 Comments
  • arfi
    Posted at 20:30h, 22 June

    Reads the article, I felt much better

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 23:47h, 11 February

    I, and I assume most others who are reading, agree with you, Neil. You might enjoy some discussions of this by Peter Smagorinsky, a colleague of mine at the University of Georgia. See, for example, Confessions of a Mad Professor: An Autoethnographic Consideration of Neuroatypicality, Extranormativity, and Education, which appeared in the Teachers College Record in 2011 or 2012. I’m sure if you contacted Peper, he’d send it and others to you. Let us know what you think about them.

  • Neil Samuels
    Posted at 02:45h, 11 February

    I feel somewhat compelled to jump in here, as I have been working in the field for the last 13 yrs.
    What is fascinating to me that many on the “spectrum” feel immensely relieved when they finally have an diagnostic “label” (pathology) to explain their differences! Now, from the perspective of “genius” (Ala. Einstein, Mozart, Gates, etc.) would not (in some unspoken form or fashion) what passes as “neurotypical thinking” constitute a paradigm of pathology and deficiencies?

    We have to be enormously cautious, reflective and subtle and ask: “From whose perspective?” Now, certainly it cannot be the biopsychiatric complex along with their many consorts. e.g., teachers who desire maintain classroom management and control with their impetuous and rambunctious and daydreaming children rather than pause and look beneath the stereotypical phantom surface and begin to look more at the entire picture – which often does include challenged family dynamics, in addition to embracing and cultivating individual heterogeneous processing differences?

    Underlying individual processing differences in children should not be more or less defacto viewed as constituting pathological challenges? For whom? Furthermore, we should not think in terms of a single “spectrum” but a vast neurodiversified human spectrum. I have no doubt whatsoever, that after reviewing at various times DSM that I too would have proudly earned the diagnosis of ADHD, ODD, possibly mild Aspergers, etc., as a child, that is,if I had been born a decade later; where psychotropics would have been more fully campaigned/marketed and the pathological urge
    for classroom management and control would have been at an all time high, and the accompanied basic blueprint of “expeditious efficiency” of teachers, administrators and school psychologists to refer families for outside consultation for probable diagnosis would have been fully in place!

    What is utterly frightening is that “Genius” today (you know, those who don’t fit, have sloppy handwriting, yet ruminate in moments of songe, what it is like to travel on a beam of light” like Einstein and others) are drugged, pathologized and hereby prevented from the ripe old age of five from doing do so! If we are going to have a definition of non-neurotypical can the overlords of DSM possibly describe what “neurotypical” looks like and moreover, while we are at it, from whose perspective? From someone who lives in the heart of Manhattan or someone who lives in the heart of the Andaman islands?

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 00:39h, 28 December

    Thanks, Barbara, for the background.
    Will check it out this week.

  • Barbara Kotsamanidis-Burg
    Posted at 23:05h, 26 December

    He has been my mentor for the last 12 years. It’s a neuro-optometric approach whose model is built on what one sees influencing how they’ll both feel and behave. My background in educational psychology has allowed me to broaden the work towards individuals with learning, developmental and social-emotional issues.

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 22:00h, 26 December

    Thanks so much, Barbara. I’ll definitely check out Kaplan’s books.
    Do you have a professional interest in this broad topic?

  • Barbara Kotsamanidis-Burg
    Posted at 16:42h, 26 December

    Hi Dr Holzman– I think you might be interested in reading Seeing Through New Eyes, by Melvin Kaplan. It is based on perceptual disfunctions and a unique treatment protocol. Dr Kaplan is currently writing a second book, which broadens the scope to the general population with these same perceptual differences (those with anxiety, bipolar, depression disorders). Happy Holidays!

  • loisholzman
    Posted at 23:05h, 23 December

    That’s so nice to hear, Marc. I wonder what the controversy is. I haven’t read Foer’s book but just checked it on Amazon and cannot immdiately see the relatioship between the two books that would generate controversy. If you find out let me know, and if I do, I’ll let you know.

  • Marc W-G
    Posted at 19:14h, 23 December

    Always interested in your thoughts and directions Lois. I followed your lead and checked out “Born on a Blue Day” on Amazon and come to find out it is quite contreversial with people who have read Joshua Foer’s book, “Moonwalking with Einstein”. These people feel that he is a fraud – not autistic, not having synthesia, not a savant. Not having read either book I only write to alert people to the contraversy.

Post A Comment