Abstract
Many researchers use the term “context” loosely to denote diverse kinds of reference points. The issue is not about terminology but rather about the common conflation of one kind of reference points, such as rules of perception, which is responsible for optical illusions, with another kind, known as “context” or “frame,” as exemplified in Rubin's vase. Many researchers regard Rubin's vase as a special kind of optical illusions. This paper rather argues that the two phenomena are radically different. Optical illusions are occasional mistakes that people quickly recognize and eagerly correct, while the different figures of Rubin's vase are not mistakes but, rather, the outcomes of different perspectives that do not need correction. The competing figures in Rubin's vase can, at best, in light of more information, be more warranted or unwarranted. This paper discusses at length one ramification of the proposed distinction. The framing effects, such as loss/gain frame, are the products of contexts and, hence, resemble greatly the figures in Rubin's vase. In contrast, cognitive illusions generated occasionally by the rules of thumb (heuristics) are mistakes and, hence, resemble optical illusions. The proposed distinction carries other ramifications regarding, e.g., happiness studies, moral judgments, and the new philosophy of science.
Highlights
Consider these two valuations that you may undertake: 1. You train diligently for many years and expect to win the “first rank” in a marathon race, but instead, you win the second out of three possible ranks.2
Is the evaluation of accomplishment analytically equivalent to the evaluation of a price via relative comparisons? Stating the research question differently, The research question: Is the reference point acting as a context to evaluate the achievement more or less indistinguishable from the reference point acting as relativeness needed to assess the price of a good?
This paper proposes the following answer: Core hypothesis: the reference point providing a context to make sense of the achievement belongs to a different genus than the reference point providing relativeness acting as a benchmark or an anchor used to assess the price of a good
Summary
Consider these two valuations that you may undertake: 1. You train diligently for many years and expect to win the “first rank” in a marathon race, but instead, you win the second out of three possible ranks. The primary thesis derived from the core hypothesis is that framing effects differ radically from cognitive illusions that arise occasionally from the use of relativeness, namely, the rules of thumb or heuristics that are representative of the class of phenomena under focus. The DM chose the non-pigmented area as the ground, the two opposed faces in a profile would be the figure In this plain representation of Rubin’s vase, the DM would experience perspective alternation with equal probability. The Rubin’s vase phenomenon is the product of impoverished twodimensional experiences affording ambiguous information Such suspicion, as suggested above, stems from the entrypoint supposition that all figures can be, as the case with ordinary objects, stripped from the ground in a non-laboratory setting. When confronted with perceptual illusions, this approach explains them away as the outcome of poor information
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
