Magazine | Walking yourself

how do we percieve ourselves and the world around us?

this is a myth. we shouldn’t trust it.

are you sure you’re walking your dog? it looks like it’s the opposite.

Now, think about this for a minute. If hallucination is a kind of uncontrolled perception, then perception is also a kind of hallucination, but a controlled hallucination. In fact, we’re all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.

5

today, it is a widely studied topic in general psychology. Perception is an area of interest because the perceived is a direct

Perception is a process that makes it possible to assign meaning to sensory inputs coming from the external environment. Many scholars have always dealt with perception and, even

representation of reality and a direct source from which it is possible to deduce the functioning of the

human mind. The concept of perception goes back a long time and was conceptualized for the first time in philosophy; it refers to becoming aware of something, that is, being aware of the fact that there are other things than

6

diating between the real and its representation; it is a process which, in short, leads to the formation of new forms of knowledge deriving from sensory or real data.

ourselves. In fact, the word “perceive” means the collection of information that can confirm the existence of an external world. Perception, therefore, has the task of me-

In psychology, on the other hand, perception is understood as a mental process aimed at converting sensory data into meaningful concepts. It

often happens to confuse the concept of perception with that of sensation, using the two terms indistinctly, which, however, imply very different processes.

7

8

9

10

In 1971, social psychologist Donn Byrne asked a group of participants to fill out a questionnaire about their personal characteristics. Participants were then shown (designed) descriptions of a wide range of different people and asked how they felt about the “described” people. People “described” with characteristics similar to the evaluator were rated as

12

more attractive. From this first experiment, which was followed by countless researches, Byrne theorized the ‘law of attraction’, according to which attraction to a person is positively correlated with the percentage of similar attitudes associated with that person. The more we resemble each other, the more we attract each other.

13

Ok, first of all, remember that you can’t know what anyone else is perceiving. You can only perceive your perception of their perception. Ha. That’s right people, we’re going further down the rabbit hole today.

You have to remember that you’re in the center of your own holographic Universe.

Everything that you perceive is only there because it’s a reflection of your energy.

Now, a lot of people get themselves into trouble with this concept of perception, because they assume that 1.) they can see EVERYTHING there is to see (arrogant much?), and 2.) they actually know what other people are perceiving. But you can’t do either. Your value as a human here on Earth is your perception – your unique perspective that no one else can have. We each offer a completely unique perspective

that no other human or entity in this world can offer in precisely the same way. If that wasn’t the case, then we wouldn’t need any of us. We would just have some guy named Bob sitting here by himself… observing. But that’s not the case! We each bring our unique perspective and perception to the table. But in order to do that, we can’t also at the same time share someone else’s perception. In other words, you can only be in your own head; you can’t be in anyone else’s. How they might be perceiving something is completely irrelevant. The only thing that’s relevant is: how are YOU perceiving what they are perceiving? I’ll explain further. Let’s say that you actually do think that you’re really funny. You go out and crack a bunch of jokes, and you attract a bunch of people that mirror back to you how you feel about yourself. In this case, they’re not validating that you’re funny; they’re mirroring back to you the fact that you genuinely feel good about yourself. So, you’re going to be in a vibration where you also attract people who think that you’re funny. This doesn’t mean that EVERYONE in the world thinks that you’re funny. But you don’t need everyone in the world to think that. Nor would you even be able to perceive everyone in the world. You can only ever perceive that which you’re a vibrational match to. And the way in which you experience that shows you where your energy

is at, or essentially, how you’re feeling about yourself. So, let’s say that you’re perceiving (from the outside, where you really don’t know what’s going on) a person who seems to have the adoration of many. Now, let’s say that they really do have the adoration of many and they’re experiencing that in a really positive way. That means that what’s being mirrored back to them is that they feel truly good about themselves. It’s not that everyone loves them because of it, it’s that they’re attracting people into their reality who are mirroring back how they feel about themselves. If you, however, are looking at that from the outside, saying “I don’t get it. What do they see that I don’t see?”, then you’re sort of missing the point.

What do they see that you don’t see? A lot!

Because they have a different perspective than you do. The problem arises when you start to look at what other people are looking at and you assume that, for some brain dead reason, you have to share their perspective.When you see someone that you don’t really like and you see others liking them, nothing has gone wrong. All that means is that you, personally, don’t resonate with that person. It doesn’t mean that they’re bad. You see, you’re whole question kind of hinges on the idea that we should all share the same perspective and opinion, and that only one opinion is right.

16

There are several theories that try to explain this phenomenon.

One idea is that we are attracted to people who are like us, because they allow us to confirm beliefs about ourselves. We want to believe that we are good, and if we meet someone who is similar to us, we like it because it makes us believe that we are good too. Another idea is that we are afraid of rejection, so we look for people who correspond to us at different levels. Another hypothesis is that we become attached to people who are fond The more we have of us, and therefore people close to us (same city, same group of are attracted by friends, same job, etc...). Moreover, when we are told that a perof a feather flock similar attitudes to other people, the more we son appreciates us, we tend to change them. This is a pretty linear relationship. ‘Birds in positive attitudes together’ much more than ‘Opposites attract’. towards it; sometimes it suffices that we think that people with similar attitudes (or characteristics) to us are more inclined to appreciate us, that we will almost automatically tend to appreciate them accordingly, regardless of what they really believe. Even more important, however, is the common finding that some similarities are linked to the success of a relationship. And even though we are attracted to people like us over different attributes, when it comes to the quality of a relationship some factors are more important than others. Different scientific studies show that similarity in values or political beliefs is not really important, but it is the similarity of personality and emotion that makes the difference in relationships.

17

When you meet someone new, it might be difficult to discern why you find yourself attracted to (or not attracted to) them. However, studies show that biology has a lot to do with your level of attraction to someone else. Let’s talk about one of the cornerstone studies in the psychology field regarding attraction: The Love Bridge study.2 This study made the connection between arousal and attraction. In this study, psychologists Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron had 85 men walk

18

across either a scary suspension bridge or a sturdy regular bridge. On the bridge, the men were approached by a female interviewer who asked them to fill out questionnaires in response to pictures. After each interview, she passed along her phone number. It turns out, people who were on the scary bridge were much more likely to call and put down sexual content and imagery on their responses to the questionnaire. This is an example of the misattribution of arousal.3 In other words, they were excited about something, and that person was there for them to project their excitement on.

Looking back, it’s likely that the men just remembered feeling excited and then seeing a pretty woman.

Another study4 showed a photo of a moderately attractive person to people

getting on or off of a roller coaster. They asked the people to rate the photo in terms of attractiveness and dating desirability. They were also asked to rate their seatmate’s desirability. The people getting off the roller coaster rated their seatmates higher in terms of attractiveness than those getting on the roller coaster.In addition to adrenaline, studies have found that smell plays a role in attraction.5 For example, after being asked to smell different t-shirts worn by men, women actually chose the shirts of men whose genes signified their immune systems were different from their own. Then, of course, there’s always the case for pheromones, which is a natural scent that your body produces.6

2.

Dutton DG, Aron AP. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

1974;30(4):510–517.

3.

White GL, Fishbein S, Rutsein J. Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981;41(1):56–62.

4.

Meston CM, Frohlich PF. Love at First Fright: Partner Salience Moderates Roller-Coaster-Induced Excitation Transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior.

2003;32(6).

5.

Wedekind C, Penn D. MHC genes, body odours, and odour preferences.

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation.

2000;15(9):1269–1271.Roberts SA, Simpson DM, Armstrong SD, et al. Darcin: a male pheromone that stimulates female memory and sexual attraction to an individual male’s odour. BMC Biol. 2010;8(75).

19

A man’s best friend it’s fascinating science stuff!1 Dogs see us as family… and you thought it was the other way around! (So did we). Turns out that Dogs see their people as family, and the feeling then as James Gorman notes, we loved our tail-wagging beseems to be mutual. Cognition scientists at Emory Universties before inventing agriculture, language, or permanent The term ‘a dog is a man’s best friend’ was first used way sity demonstrated that a dogs’ brains’ reward centre lit up homes and even before we domesticated cows, goats, or back in 1789 by King Frederick of Prussia. He’s claimed to most when presented with human scents (even over food cats! The human-dog relationship was born when ancient say, “the only, absolute and best friend that a man has, in and other dogs). These results bolstered other research that wolves discovered they can scavenge the leftovers from huthis selfish world, the only one that will not betray or deny shows dogs act similarly to human sounds and that they are man kills for more reward, and far less risk, than hunting him, is his Dog.” Research suggests dog ownership may imthe only non-primates to run toward humans for protection themselves. Over successive generations, their offspring prove heart health, decrease depression, and even help you and comfort.wellbeing. became more dependent on human benefactors and we live longer – it’s a symbiotic relationship that has been as took them into our service.But where are we now? We love beneficial for humans, as much as our canine companions.

Kevin Dickinson’s list of 6 reasons why dogs truly are our And it’s a bond that stretches back at least 15,000 years. best friends… all the links are at the bottom of this blog – That’s one possibility at least; some fossil evidence suggests domestication as far back as 30,000 years. If that’s true

21

22

masking” photo conditions, pictured b elow: no-mask ( in which

the human’s and the dog’s faces were unobstructed), eye-mask (the human’s eyes were blacked out), mouthmask (the human’s mouth was blacked out), dog-eye-mask (the dog’s eyes were blacked out), and eye-only (where just the eyes of the human and the dog could be seen).” The rate at which the students correctly matched the person with their dogs dropped significantly when the eyes in the photos were masked. This result supports the theory that the eyes are the most important feature connecting humans and our dogs. Dr. Nakajima’s work was published in the journal Anthrozoös in 2013.

ners again. A s HuffPost explains: “ The particip ants were randomly assigned t o one of five different “

According to the BBC, “Michael Roy at the University of California, San Diego was one of the first psychologists

to put the idea to the test. Going to three nearby dog parks, he photographed the pooches and the owners separately,

and then asked a group of participants to try to match them up. Despi te no additional cues, he found that they were able to work out who lived with whom with reasonable accuracy.”

This work has since been repeated many times, notably by Dr. Sadahiko Nakajima at Japan’sKwansei Gakuin University. Dr. Nakajima conducted a study using photographs of humans and their pups. He asked undergraduate students to match each person with their dog from the randomly ordered photographs. The results showed that the students correctly guessed the person and the pup by looking at the photos at a rate significantly higher than luck alone. Dr. Nakajima’s research, published in 2009, found that there really is truth to the idea that dogs resemble their owners. Next, Dr. Nakajima wanted to find out why dogs looked like their owners. Which facial features did people use to correctly match dogs with their owners so accurately? In another study, he covered up different facial features in the photos, such as the mouth and the eyes, and asked students to match dogs and their ow-

The reason wh

According to the BBC, “Michael Roy at the University of California, San Diego was one of the first psychologists to put the idea to the test. Going to three nearby dog parks, he photographed the pooches and the owners separately, and then asked a group of participants to try to match them up. Despite no additional cues, he found that they were able to work out who lived with whom with reasonable accuracy.”

This work has since been canklrepeated many times, notably by Dr. Sadahiko Nakajima at Japan’sKwansei Gakuin University. Dr. Nakajima conducted a study using photographs of humans and their pups. He asked undergraduate students to match each person with their dog from the randomly ordered photographs.

The results showed that the students correctly guessed the person and the pup by looking at the photos at a rate significantly higher than luck alone. Dr. Nakajima’s research, published in 2009, found that there really is truth to the idea that dogs resemble their owners. Next, Dr. Nakajima wanted to find out why dogs looked like their owners. Which facial features did people use to correctly match dogs with their owners so accurately? In another study, he covered up different facial features in the photos, such as the mouth and the eyes, and asked students to match dogs and their owners again. As HuffPost explains: “The participants were randomly assigned to one of five different “masking” photo conditions, pictured below: no-mask (in which the human’s and the dog’s faces were unobstructed), eye-mask (the human’s eyes were blacked out), mouth-mask (the human’s mouth was blacked out), dog-eye-mask (the dog’s eyes were blacked out), and eye-only (where just the eyes of the human and the dog could be seen).” The rate

at which the students correctly matched the person with their dogs dropped significantly when the eyes in the photos were

masked. This result supports the theory

that the eyes are the most important feature connecting humans and our dogs. Dr. Nakajima’s work was published in the journal Anthrozoös in 2013.

25

Dog’s genetic

The analysis of ancient a from all over Eurasia reco the long common histo se animals with human about 11,000 years ago, an how the habits, activitie grations of humans popul the past influenced the g our best friends. Dogs we animals to be domesticate mans and, for at least the la years, their genes have cha adapt to living together w 26

and modern dog genomes onstructs the passages of ory of thens, up to nd shows es and milations of genes of ere the first ed by huast 11,000 anged to with our ancestors, partemerges from the map of the complex genetic history of dogs, reconstructed by a study published in “Science” by Anders Bergström and colleagues from a large international collaboration, who analyzed 27 genomic sequences of dogs dating back as far as 11,000 years ago and coming from all over Eurasia. The result is part of a debate that has been going on for years about some crucial stages in the evolution of the dog, which mainly concern its origin and its relationship with humans. It is known in fact that the dogs have evolved from an ancestral population of wolves that have domesticated themselves following the human populations of hunter-gatherers of Eurasia of the Paleolithic and nourishing of their remains.

However, the exact chronology and geographical location where the phylogenetic branch of the dogs emerged remain very uncertain due to the lack of remains of the epoch. One help comes from genetic data, which trace the event back to a time between 25,000-40,000 years ago, prior to the domestication of cattle, pigs and sheep, which took place in different geographical areas independently from different populations of wild animals. For dogs, on the other hand, genomic analyses tell a different story: separation from an extinct wolf population would have occurred only once. important. This hypothesis, which has so far remained speculative, is confirmed by the results of Bergström and colleagues: over the last 11,000 years, the phylogenetic branches of dogs and wolves have remained largely separate, only occasionally cross-breeding, and have spread all over the world. The data from the study also show another important fact: over the last 10,000 years, different groups of dogs have crossed frequently with each other and in different regions, both in Eurasia and in the Americas, according to patterns that reproduce the ancient genetic reshuffles of human populations. Hence the idea that the opportunities for encounters between human populations favored the encounters between the populations of dogs that were following them. There are important exceptions, however, where dogs do not seem to have followed their masters faithfully: in areas of present-day Iran, for example, indigenous dogs have at some point been replaced by others from the Middle East, although human populations have remained the same. Further evidence of convergent evolution between humans and dogs comes from changes in the genes coding for the enzyme amylase, contained in saliva, which is used to break down the molecules of starch, contained in cereals.

These changes are evident in the genome of humans over the last 7000 years, i.e. since the beginning of agriculture, as well as in the genome of dogs indicating that dog feeding habits have also changed accordingly. “The dog is the oldest domestic animal and has a very old relationship with humans: understanding their history means understanding ours too,” Bergström concluded.

27

An – e oth a sp er so rath ecia reas al cia er e lly on va so b lize xtr if th cou tie ble e va wit ove ey ld b s. th lid h s rt o hav e t t Su at : w e h ch an the rang ne liv at a se ac pe er r is ed ct lec tiv rs s a li to ivi tio e a on nd kel get tie n c nd alit ot y t he s w ou en y o he o g r s ith ld er f t rs l et inc th oc ge he ike in e th e o v cu tic r b do dog him olve e p wne ot g . d e r h a st influ Ho in t w aff t t imu en we so as ect he la ce ve cia a p th in tes s it r, th l e up e d v di vid its s ow e in ent py. og’ ua ow ne ve s a Thu s p l le ne r. rse nd s, ers ve r t It i co th th on l a o p s t nn us e d al nd er he ec w o ity in for ref tio illi g o th m ore n ng f co ly et m yp ore con uld e o a ce f b c t iv i re ied .

How similar are dogs and owners?

It is often claimed that the dog and its owner look similar. And indeed studies show that many people choose a dog that looks like them outwardly. Christina Payn e and Klaus Jaffe photographed 48 breeds of dogs and their owners. The photos were then mixed and presented in an experiment to people who then had to put together the correct pairs of dog and owner. In fact, these people subjected to the experiment were able, not by chance, to often find the correct dog-master pairs. The results of this Venezuelan study were subsequently confirmed by other studies in the USA and Japan. This outward resemblance was only detected with photos of purebred dogs. However, if photos of mixed-race dogs and their owners are shown to people undergoing the experiment, the right association almost never happens.

Similar mechanisms also occur in the search for the human social partner. In this we focus not only on physical attraction, but also on psychological characteristics. Personality similarity also seems to play a role: it leads to greater satisfaction in the relationship (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Since dogs are often considered close companions, friends or family, the same cultural and psychological factors may influence the choice of these four-legged animals. Probably many people choose a specific dog or breed, because they find different behavioral aspects and/or similarities to themselves particularly interesting. In this every person has his or her individual preferences. There are many reasons for the influence of the owner’s personality on the dog’s personality. On the one hand, because of the close social relationship there could be a distortion of the perception of the owner. This means that the owner assigns similar behavioural characteristics to the four-legged animal without the animal actually demonstrating such characteristics. However, this belief is unlikely, since the assessments of self and external estimates are similar in the personality questionnaires used (Turcsán et al. 2012). Indeed, several studies find correspondences in the personality structures between man and dog.

I n For example, emotionally unstable owners judge their dogs as nervous and insecure, while extroverted people dein fa scribe their four-leg- p ter ct, ged pet as energetic, enthusiastic and very socially open (Turcsán et al., 2012). a e d Sociable people a l nio stin iffe judge their dog less aggressive, while people with a greater sense of responsiok ot n in g. ren bility think their four-legged companion is better trained (Chopik et al. 2019). Owners of dogs F o t i sp ng f a or p s u f f e r i n g a ort fo affe dog exa eop from anxiety problems (e.g. anxiety attacks or detachment anxiety) often y r c q m le d e s c r i - bre uie pe a fa tion the pl na be themselves as less self-confident (Dodman 2003) and owners of re ed t p rso irl . W n c e, o tu fle a er n y r aggressive four-legged animals tend to justify them by saying they are h a ct nd so w ind her oos wne lly i fi / themselves very tense (Podberscek & Serpell 1997). In addition, people n l th o e rs e e a e p r i pro l pr pen as lo nd d e n f a o with minier di ba fe de ra ou ki iff mum values in the “tolerance” personality category prefer so vid bl r a n n t f the r-le g f eren red aggressive (Egan & MacKenzie 2012). A similar assobreeds considena u y d g r a a o lit o g or t ciation is also found y o l do qu g t ur-l ind ed a c cha in another study: owners of dog breeds that often i e h eg p an los ra g et f a th m cause injuries (this survey includes akitas, dobermanns, rottweilers, g e t e o ay dog su ed nde ima e so cter chow-chows, pit bulls, and wolf half-breeds), are more likely to exhibit wn co . T its co nt l th cia tra er nsc he his mp pe at l co its antisocial behaviour and are more likely to be at risk than people from r . a r io ef s us or dai nio son ho mother comparable groups (Ragatz et al. 2009). w ly e, ly n. i or th lif A s lo s v un e c e, co ho wh ery ns ic ile cio e o us f ly

30

Free University of Bolzano - Bozen Faculty of Design and Art Bachelor in Design and art - Major in Design WUP 22/23 | 1st semester Foundation course Project Module Editorial Design Designed by Elena Pandini Magazine | Walking yourself Supervision Project leader: Prof. Antonino Benincasa Project assistants: Amedeo Bonini Rocco Modugno Photography Unsplash: Aiony Haust, Albert Dera, Alexander Krivitskiy, Austin Wade, Baptist Standaert, Christian Buehner, Christopher Campbell, Dilara Irem, Filipp Romanovski, Gabriella Clare Marino, Hayes Potter, Imansyah, Muhamad Putera, Jack Finnigan, Jake Nackos, Jimmy Fermin, John Cameron, Joseph Gonzales, Julian Wan, Jurica Koletic, Kieran White, Linkedin sales solutions, Ludovic Migneault, Mark Farias, Oscar Sutton, Peri Stojnic, Rachel Mcdermott, Robert Godwin, Salvatore Ventura, Sam, Spencer Quast, Stefan Stefancik, Stephanie Cantu, Stephanie Liverani, Taylor Kopel Pexels: Angela Roma, Dsd, Ketut Subiyanto, Lukas, Pedro Figueras Paper Coated 150gr Fonts Klavika Lack by Adrien Midzic Printed Bolzano, Bozen February 2023 Inside pages - Digital print | Canon