News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by Sambdala on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @07:57AM (#5818832)
Even explicitly knowing I was looking at signs telling me to "relax and enjoy myself," I found myself interpreting the sign as the warning/restriction counterpart message until my second or third (even more careful) reading.

It's a lot like the phenomenon where if you include and and twice in a row, you'll likely not realize the typo.

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by lutze on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:05AM (#5818861)
This is remarkable, I initially thought you'd typo'd your typo and had to do a double take to spot it.

Isn't the brain a wonderful and scary thing.

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by simba-hiiipower on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:45AM (#5819042)
that first one took me the longest.. i kept reading it as 'keep off the grass'. really confused me as to why that was there among all the other more pleasant signs..?

it was only after going through all the others that i got it. seems my brain is conditioned that in the presence of 'keep' and 'grass' i should remain off.

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by klibertp on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:58AM (#5819110)
Yeah, that conditioning is probable. And scary. Just think how many more signs/words/images/emotions are hardwired in your brain. Scary.
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by sneak on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @01:38PM (#5820903)
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by easytiger on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:48AM (#5819060)
i thought it was more of an issue

issue when you put them on line breaks.

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by dt7 on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @11:18AM (#5819890)
I think the layout has to look natural, because that one didn't work for me.
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by corin_ on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @11:41AM (#5820083)
Partly due to big line breaks, partly due to short lines of text, and partly due to short overall text length.
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by klibertp on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:55AM (#5819097)
"I found myself interpreting the sign as the warning/restriction counterpart message"

Couldn't you just read the whole sign properly on the first try? Why did you glance over the rest of it? I think that's your fault - and our society these days - and not the fault of the signs, which were cute and funny.

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by ctdonath on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:42AM (#5819315)
I once made a point of reading & counting every sign around a bus door. There were 18 signs. Somehow I'm not surprised nobody reads any of them: so often irrelevant for all practical purposes, we've been trained by the signs to not read them. Ergo I won't fault anyone for following their warning-sign-induced preprogramming to give warning-like signs little more than a cursory glance, even when admonished to really pay attention this time.
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by darkchasma on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:06AM (#5819146)
You think the problem with society is our pattern recognition, and exclusion behaviour? A result of being inundated with perpetual signage which is irrelevant, or inane?

Since this is a result of society, why are you getting all blamey?

Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by Sambdala on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:16AM (#5819192)
"Yeah, that conditioning is probable. And scary. Just think how many more signs/words/images/emotions are hardwired in your brain. Scary."
Re:“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to rela... by klibertp on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @12:29PM (#5820419)
I'm sorry, I didn't want to sound that negatively (as other comments on this level indicate I did).

The thing is that I understand why someone would glance over something twice before reading it at last. And I'm not going to shoot people who do this. But I still don't think that's a good thing to do, a good behavioral pattern.

In this example, seriously, why didn't you read the sign on the first try? Probably because, as you quoted, you were expecting the sign to be boring shit, not worth reading. But hey, you were told that it is not shit beforehand! So, to have trouble with reading it, you must have: a) not believed that the signs are legitimate content; or b) struggled and failed against your reflexive rejection of the signs as garbage.

The latter option is more probable, I think. You tried to overcome your conditioning and pattern-matching defaults, and finally you succeeded. But you could succeed earlier, had you exercised! You could try to play with optical illusions or do puzzles, or something like this. And after a while you would have no problem at all with recognising the signs in this article.

What I wanted to say in my previous posts is that this lack of ability to ignore reflexes, see and (sometimes try to) understand is a very good thing to develop for yourself, and that unfortunately people are less and less aware that this is the case (scary!), because what they come in contact with is constantly getting larger, cruder and more obvious.