Pushing too hard here. Go ahead and talk about privilege and perception, but using that experiment to somehow back things up makes no sense. I'm not arguing against what Rachel said, I'm just saying using the video to compare things make no sense.

The video demonstrates that people focused on a specific activity might not see other things that are not part of that activity. But it shows this for something temporary, something that demands attention for a limited time, and this makes all the difference.

What that experiment shows is that when focused on something we filter other things out, but our focus on that something must remain constant. In our daily lives we are not in the same perpetual state of mind. We are dividing our time in several tasks and sometimes in no tasks.

If you ask a person to just watch the video, the gorilla probably will be seen more easily. In our lives we are not constantly counting ball passes, sometimes we are just looking at things.

Besides there's the whole gigantic difference between counting ball passes and perceiving a concept that is far more complex and has many ways to hide itself.

Ummm... It's a bit of a jump in the argument to privilege, but I haven't read her entire logical path, and I can see several ways to get to the conclusion, and I would expand upon it to include the way in which American sociologists are unable to see the how US-centrism so colors their point of view about other cultures. Apologists use the excuse that the sociologist is an American, or has an American audience, but that very point is not an excuse for the privileged US-centric point-of-view, but another example of it.

However, this explains a lot. For instance, it explains why for so many years, US researchers were seemingly blind to whole swaths of non-US behavior in the cultures they were studying. After all, in the US-centric worldview they had inherited from their culture, other cultures were explainable based on US contexts, and not independent in any real way. So when non-US peoples acted in ways that didn't match with US contexts, the US researchers overlooked it altogether, continuing to apply the previous explanations regardless of the evidence.

Of course, such culture blindness is as difficult to tackle as what Rachel proposes. In order to understand a social condition, you need to understand the society in which the condition emerged: this history, the language, the people's perception of the world, etc. It requires that you look at things that make you cringe and try to see if there is a non-US-centric explanation for these things that are acceptable to the people engaged in the activity (and I did say people and not just "men" or "women" or "children" or "elders").

Like the blindness of the initial viewer of the above video, learning to see the gorilla in the scene requires that you no longer hold your pre-determined social constructs as absolute. However, it is also certainly true that questioning strongly held constructs is a very difficult thing to do, but in an increasingly globalized world, it behooves us to do so (unless we wish to expand and impose a US-centric viewpoint upon the world).

I saw this clip in a room full of women (at a job applications and interviews workshop for women in technical fields) and apparently only I and one other woman saw it. I was and still am astounded that so many people don't see it.

I remember the first time I saw this experiment I missed it altogether (although the version i saw had a moonwalking bear). It's the kind of thing you can't repeat though.

I admit, I see a metaphorical connection but maybe if the video had been at the end of the post instead of the beginning the connection would have been more clear? It's definitely not a perfect analogy from physical sight to what researchers look at, but I see how it ties together.

I think I'm agreeing this the other commenters above... While this is potentially a nice illustrative analogy, the fact is that "selective attention" (in the very specific sense the gorilla video shows) is very different from the filters and lenses that are part of a fully developed worldview.

Again, interesting analogy that can get the mental "juices flowing" but really shouldn't be pushed further than that...

This is a much better version because the movement is faster and there is less visual contrast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pK0BQ9CUHk

I saw the gorilla! But I have to admit that I was slightly distracted at that moment and then missed to count 2 passes.

Hmm... I can agree that our perceptions and preconceived notions colour our interpretations of things, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to interpret this as privilege (would interpreting it in that way not be the result of preconceived notions and perception as well?). I certainly don't think the video test demonstrate privilege in any way; rather, it demonstrates focus.

While watching the video, I "saw" the gorilla, but only as a vague "something out of place just went by." The reason is because I was focused on watching and counting the white shirted passes. I was trying to follow the instructions, and in doing so, dismissed anything that would have distracted from the goal I was focusing on. My daughter watched the video after I did, and I could see by her expression the exact moment the gorilla walked into the frame. She, it turns out, was uninterested in actually following the instructions and only vaguely attempting to count the passes. Her focus wasn't there, so when the gorilla showed up, her attention was immediately diverted. Privilege has nothing to do with it.

Likewise, if a person is walking down the street and steps around someone lying on the sidewalk, is it because they are privileged and therefore uncaring about the homeless? Or is it because they're so focused on their own thoughts, their own problems, etc. that they simply didn't "see" the person, just as I saw the gorilla go by without "seeing" what it was, just that it was there.

As much as we might try not to be, we all have biases, prejudices and preconceived notions. Our backgrounds, our perceptions, our focus, all come together to influence how we interpret something. At best, we can be aware of our own biases and recognize when they might be colouring our ability to remain neutral in our observations.

I couldn't concentrate on the passes to begin with.

I counted twelve, and did notice the gorilla, but figuring he was meant to distract, i just concentrated on the passes.

I'm not sure I get why the gorilla proves privileged perception. The gorilla walking through is odd, because he's not playing, and HE'S A GORILLA.

And, of course, I'm a scroll-commenter, not a read-then-comment girl here.

Also, the gorilla's presence is ruined by the fact that the screencap includes the gorilla. so you already will know a gorilla comes in somewhere.

Is this some kind of joke? I stopped counting passes ... as soon as a gorilla walked in.

I have seen a different version of this so I knew what was coming. The first time I tried it, though I definitely missed the odd walk-though, which I think was a dancing bear. I am constantly noticing the limits of my perception and memory.

The fact that so many fail to understand how this relates to privilege just highlights the weird misconceptions people have about what is meant by "privilege". Maybe the connection needs to be made a bit more explicit?

I mean, it made perfect sense to me in the context of our recent discussions on street harassment of women, racism, etc., where there were a number of people commenting to say the problems were being exaggerated, since they had never personally noticed them. A very nice example of how, if something doesn't seem relevant to you, you might not see it at all. But the prevailing notion that "privileged" means "bigoted jerk" seems to be confusing matters here.

I think part of the way to connect this short scene to the larger notion of privilege is contained in Kunoichi's point about following instructions. When I worked as a police officer, I had a difficult time "following orders" when it came to the homeless. Part of this was due to my background in philosophy, the other part being that I didn't think it really was the duty of campus law enforcement to push the agenda of some bigoted segment of our population. Nevertheless, we had our orders to respond to these calls and bar people from the campus for the sole act of sleeping while smelly, despite this being a public place where students routinely slept and hadn't showered during exam weeks. Consequently, I was able to notice more often where the homeless were, why they were there, and how to help them find places where they could avoid harassment themselves.

But it seemed a common enough thread all-around that I began to notice on that side of the law: following orders/instructions gives people not only a structure they can go through to make sense of their lives, but also absolves them of some responsibility for taking care of issues outside their rule sets. For instance, if a car broke down outside our jurisdiction, some officers would drive past: "Not our problem." A sewage system under pressure ruptured and was spilling out solid waste into the street. Streets & Drainage came out, immediately recognized it was sewage and not stormwater and left without doing anything: "Not my problem." When I wanted to document statements an offender made that gave the offender a possible affirmative defense to the charge at some future trial, I was told to remove that line from the report: "Not your problem."

It would be cheap for me to make the maudlin point about the worst of ways we could follow orders leading to mass homicide, but it seems to me that privilege often works into the ways we take advantage of what our rule sets are in guiding our behaviors at very basic, seemingly innocuous levels. If it's known that someone has to follow instructions to lend support to someone —it's this nurse's job to care for this elderly person; it's this baby-sitter's job to care for this crying baby; it's this grocery stocker's job to care for this tumbling display of oranges— people whose rule sets do not include tending to the problem will either ignore it or pass it by.

Generalizing the notion, this makes sense of the primatology example as well as the US-centric sociology example, in that the "focus" Fernando and Kunoichi identify as paradigmatic in the temporary nature of the counting scene is an instance of rule-following (we're told to count, by some unknown person for some unknown purpose, a specific thing in the midst of distracting things), and the longer research projects require not only rule-following if they are to remain on task and use grant money and funding effectively and responsibly, but also to avoid the kinds of distractions Fernando points to as representative of a daily life. If the project is looking specifically at, say, the mating behaviors of the males, perhaps even unwittingly arranged that way, then following the instructions for the project means precisely ignoring the things deemed unimportant and "not our problem."

But what rules, instructions, or orders matter in the day to day is a question not just of what things we hold as important for ourselves, but of what is important for the cohesion of our social setting. Privilege, in the broader sense Peggy McIntosh advanced in her famous article (I think it was just mentioned on another Society Page site) and also what I take Anonymous of 090510@1524 to be discussing, has very much to do with shaping and constructing both of these things (what's important, what's coherent), because it determines not only who must follow the rules but also when the rules are suspended. More privilege means being able to suspend the rules; my supervisors routinely did things contrary to SOP, my subordinates were they to do the same exact things receive letters of reprimand, and the distinction was enforced through an unspoken and unwritten system of privilege.

If you want to know what percentage of readers saw the gorilla, you should have included a poll, and you also could have had a second poll elsewhere for a different population. If there is no statistically significant difference between the percentage of population, it would be likely that some people notice things better visually than others and is not correlated with being aware socially (that is to say that people who can better notice things visually aren't always those who are aware of social discrepancies, etc.
I for one did see the gorilla, but I'm also not the sort of person to be really attune to social ills I think; a lot of times my reactions to articles here have been "I never thought of it that way!"

HOLY SHIT A GORILLA! RUN!

WHY AREN'T THEY RUNNING?!

I did notice the gorilla, however I only counted 14 passes

The gorilla distracted me and made me lose count...

"...there really is no completely neutral stance from which a human can observe the world."

Much of the time people who fail to see how a system advantages them and disadvantages others are simply looking through a lens warped by privilege. (emphasis added)

How is the belief that there is no one correct way to perceive reality compatible with the belief that learning about privilege makes one's perception of reality more accurate or insightful? If there is no objective perspective on the world, then no lens is more or less "warped" than the next. The experiment just as well proves that anti-oppression activists are too busy "counting passes," or noting examples of oppression, to notice the gorilla in the room, whatever that may be.

I saw the gorilla but I missed a couple of the passes--a couple at the beginning before I hit paying-attention stride and then I think another when I went "oh, hey, a gorilla!"

I saw it. However, shortly before the gorilla came in, while counting, I was thinking about the name of the video and the instructions given, and started wondering what they'd ask me at the end. It was then that I caught a glimpse of an extra black figure, the gorilla. The very fact that I was aware of it being a test was what broke the selective attention, it seems.

I have noticed this other times in life though. The first I remember was when I was maybe 10 or 12, hearing about how many planes are in the air at once and thinking "but I never SEE them in the sky," then suddenly being aware of them ALL the time. With just one little suggestion the whole world can change forever.

I think this filter is sort of a biological necessity; there's too much input to be consciously aware of and processing all at once. Obviously problematic, and something we need to force ourselves to consider in certain circumstances, but I see its purpose in allowing us to be functional.

Why are there so many mansplainers on sociological images these days?

I saw it :-) but then this wasn't the first time I've seen this one.

The first time I saw something like this (not sure if it was this exact thing) was in a road safety PSA here in the UK - which was focussed on how motorists fail to see bikes (pedal and motor) because they are only looking out for cars. But I can see how it is also applicable to other types of privilege.

The first time I saw this, I saw the darn thing.
And managed to keep an accurate count.

Parallels were drawn between perception of surroundings and perception of strengths, challenges, and gendered ideas. Taking it to privilege is not so far of a jump; the point is that we perceive differently depending on what we're focusing on. Perception is more than just our eyes or state of mind - it includes our biases, what we're focusing on in our lives, and a thousand other little differences.

I counted 15 and saw the gorilla. I thought the trick was going to be that the gorilla messed you up and made you lose count.

Yup, saw gorilla and completely messed up the counting part. Well done those who counted correctly and saw the gorilla.

I never saw a gorilla. I saw a person in a gorilla suit, so I guess that is close enough. I also have no idea how times the people wearing white passed the ball. All of them are wearing something white that can be seen except the person in the gorilla suit and possibly one other person.

I saw the gorilla, I didn't notice him/her pound his/her chest in the centre of the room, but I totally saw it. I assumed the gorilla was supposed to distract you and make you unable to count. I still got the count at 15. Is that weird?

While bias definitely is a piece of a privileged outlook (as it is in any outlook), I'd argue that the bias affects the conclusions drawn more than the data perceived. I'm splitting hairs, I know, but I think it's more than just pointing out the gorilla to a person -- I think the gorilla has to be shown to that person to be worth pointing out.

I saw a documentary on TV once (wish I could remember the name) in which two male researchers studying the human brain did an experiment with groups of men and women. They took the subjects on a drive for 15 minutes, told them stories along the way, and warned them they'd be quizzed on the content of the stories. Afterwards, they asked everyone what make of car they'd ridden in; many more men got the answer right, so the researchers concluded men were better observers.

I remember thinking the researchers made a faulty conclusion, because the test didn't include asking the subjects what car models they were familiar with and did they find the topic of car models interesting. Assuming the subjects to meet a baseline of criteria -- one presumably met by the testers -- was a mistake. The bias of privilege here skewed the test by assigning importance to an activity before the activity was perceived.

Counted 13 for both teams, since they seemed to pass the balls at around the same time, and then I stopped when I saw the man in the gorilla suit entering the scene.

I counted 15 and I did see the gorilla! lol

It is definetely pushing too hard to use this experiment to back her views on male privilege blurring scientists' views on us. They ALWAYS saw everything but to ackknowledge it would make them lose their power and they were perfectly aware of it. They knew all the time what they were doing.

This girl from Feminist Agenda is trying to find an excuse for them. It's so like what we females are expected to do. Besides, it's not as simple as once they get to see the gorilla they just can't ignore it. Men ALWAYS knew what Feminism is all about, there's no such thing as men not understanding Feminism. They know it better than most women. And they don't like it and try to distort it because they don't wanna lose their priviledges and also it's too painful for their boosted egos to acknoledge and deal with their own awful deeds. The same is true to white ppl about racism, to rich ppl about the poor ones, any kind of opressor/opressed relationship.

Why is no one citing the research this video comes from: Daniel J Simons, Christopher F Chabris "Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events" Perceptions 1999 volume 28(9) pages 1059 – 1074

After the discussion above, about someone laying on a sidewalk and privilege, I'd like to do an experiment with that. I'm a tall, blond, blue-eyed white guy, what would people do if I were laying on the side of the street in normal, middle-class clothes? And me as compared to a woman or racial/ethnic minority, us dirtied-up in tattered clothes, etc.

Or has this already been done?

FYI, I counted the 15 passes correctly, AND I saw the gorilla.  However, I think the title of the video tipped me off that I should be looking out for other things too.

I saw the gorilla. I completely missed the tiger the first time I watched it though.

I caught the gorilla! But I missed about 5-6 passes because it distracted me so much. I wonder what that says about my personality?

I had seen this before, so I couldn't participate. I did try to ignore it and it was difficult.

I found that gorilla distracting. I missed two of the fifteen passes.