Individual differences in quick visual apprehension are striking and material-specific, negating the notion of a general ability to apprehend visually¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1910 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One observer may be more than twice as efficient as another with dots yet less than half as efficient with drawings, so excellence is specific to material types. → Whipple 1910 q2 i? These specific individual differences negative the idea of general ability in apprehension or general ability in visual apprehension. → Whipple 1910 (2)

Evidence¶

Whipple 1910¶

Whipple, G. M. (1910). The effect of practise upon the range of visual attention and of visual apprehension. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://books.google.com/books?q=Whipple+effect+of+practise+range+of+visual+attention+apprehension

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Individual-differences analysis in Table 3 of the apprehension tests with three observers (Ruger, Geissler, Vermilyea): F excelled at dots and poetry but was poorest at nonsense syllables, drawings, pictures and objects; G showed the reverse pattern.

"V, it will be seen, is more than twice as efficient as G in the perception of groups of dots, but G is more than twice as efficient as V in the perception of drawings."

Whipple 1910 (2)¶

Whipple, G. M. (1910). The effect of practise upon the range of visual attention and of visual apprehension. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://books.google.com/books?q=Whipple+effect+of+practise+range+of+visual+attention+apprehension

q2 · i? · causal · r1

The article's summary conclusion from the apprehension data: one may state only that a given individual excels in attentive observation of particular kinds of material, not in all-around observation.

"Individual differences are so striking and so specific as to negative the notion of a general ability to apprehend, or even of a general ability to apprehend visually."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Systematic practise gives little warrant for markedly improving adults' quick visual perception; the slight poetry gain is attributed to familiarity with the poem — related
• The average range of visual attention for isolated letters lies between 4 and 5 letters (4.82), with only slight individual differences — related
• Practise has a very slight effect on the range of attention, explicable by habituation and grouping tricks rather than any expansion of the range itself — related
• Practice effects in visual reproduction are specific: they transfer to new conditions only in proportion to identical ability-conditioning factors. — related
• Ability to abstract increases strikingly in the earlier school years but less markedly in later years, with striking individual differences — related