Is Everything Really What it Seams? a ongoing study by DLD
This is a study I have been working on for a while now. I have been asked to post it here. SOme may have read it already, for those who have not it may help you, it helped me doing it.
A STUDY by DLD
An Overview: Part 1
Part 1: Visual size distortion and influence of language
This photograph by English visual psychologist Richard Gregory shows two people, placed at differing distances, so that their images differ in size. Most people looking at this photograph will state that the nearer person looks a little nearer, but also a lot larger. The two subjects maintained a constant horizontal foot level independent of their distance from the viewer (this was accomplished by having the camera placed at ground level). The effect still occurred, but it is ambiguous due to the lack of a perspective background. This is due to the perspective distortion or illusion of the way the picture is presented. Why is this important to PE? I think after reading this ongoing report I am working on it will become apparent.
In the course of my studies into illusion, distortion and visual interpretation I have allowed myself to view some pornographic material. (this is important to the people who know I generally do not look at pornographic images)
VISUAL DISTORTION and/or ILLUSION
Over the course of the past few weeks I have become increasingly skeptical of penis pictures on line. The reason I embarked on this study was to calm some of my own anxieties about what I view on line and hopefully help other people suffering with similar problems. I have been left very confused after viewing images of a man in what I will call “an optimum angle photograph” opposed to subsequent pictures of the same man in a non-optimum angle photograph. On first glance the penis picture appears to be huge but on further investigation I have realized that my initial viewing was proportion bias. Basically my vision was distorted by surrounding object and/or proportion optimizing angles. I think that many times we see a picture and based on surrounding object and spacial values we arrive at a distorted perception of the object in question. I will get into this more in part 2
I have also become very interested in how language influences the way we see things. Using a popular figure for example, it has been hammered into our heads that John Holmes had a 14” penis. In turn this is a preconceived belief that will further distort our perception when we actually see a photograph of John Holmes. In many case people will just believe this measurement because it is what they have been told. In this case language played a huge roll in photographic illusion. On further investigation John Holmes is much smaller then the 14” myth, but over time in becomes increasingly more and more difficult to see this due to the constant distorted language. I have spent time doing certain tests I have developed in relation with this study to estimate size based on surrounding object and un-distorted images. In this test John Holmes is closer to less than 10”. More of this in part 2.
RELATION TO SELF VIEW AND PE
I will also get deeper into self image based on pre-conceived self opinions and how this affects how we see ourselves. I will get into my own struggles with this and some new, interesting ways to deal with these issues. I will also point out how this relates to penis enlargement.
Through this study I hope to expose media dishonesty, photographic illusion and help myself battle my own problems with self view.
Part 2: A deeper look at Size Illusion
A basic assumption that seems to be built into our visual system is that the objects that we see are from a three-dimensional world. Which seems rational enough because we spend the majority of our lives viewing the world in a 3 dimensional environment. So, if we are presented with a two-dimensional picture, our visual system tends to interpret the image as if it were caused by three-dimensional objects. This interpretation is most of the time very close to accurate. But when slight change of surrounding objects or some sort of distortion occurs illusion will follow. See picture below for a further graphic explanation.
We make judgments in 2 dimensional information based on learned knowledge (sometimes to quickly which is where illusion becomes evident). These assumptions are usually based in our three dimensional judgement. When an artist wants something to appear further away he will paint that object smaller in proportion to the foreground object, the further away the object the smaller it must be. This gives perspective of size difference and spacial value on a flat surface. Now when these same principals are applied to creating size illusion some very basic adjustments need to be made to accomplish the desired outcome. The reason this illusion is so easily orchestrated is because our visual system has been adapted for use in a three-dimensional (not a two-dimensional) world. Many times size illusion will happen purely by accident (mainly in a non controlled environment) but if the producer chooses to create illusion of something larger and/or something smaller they only need to manipulate the surrounding, not the object itself. This is easily visual in movies where the object of visual size difference is created by it’s environment. i.e..) Honey I shrunk the kids, King Kong. So when these same rules are applied to pornographic pictures the illusions are easy accomplished. Further manipulations are made at the editing phase where many adjustments can be made via the computer that before were not possible. (i.e.: morphing, which is very evident on web sites like monstercocks.com)
Being creatures of a prominently based 3 dimensional world it is easy to see how we are fooled by such basic manipulation. But it still remains that we will believe what we see a majority of the time because we lack the ability to quickly find these distortions and rationally put them in place.
Learned knowledge acts as the catalyst for this confusion because when we see something in two dimension our brains base size estimations on surrounding objects and what our past learned experience of the objects are. For example if you were to shoot a picture of a car but surround that picture with oversized objects the car would appear to be smaller. The same principals hold true when seeing a picture that lends distortion to increasing the visual size of something.
What does this knowledge accomplish for us in penis enlargement? I will relate this to myself as not to speak for other people. I can become very discouraged when I view some of the material on-line, I will play head games and ultimately feel badly about my own self image. Any kind of compitition with the images we see on line, in movies, or magazines is a very unfair war…. Why? We do not have the advantage of angle when looking down at our penis. We have very few visual points to view our own penis but in a 2 dimensional world there are infinite angles, perspectives and distortions. The second problem with viewing ourselves compared to media images is we are usually consumed with self doubt and have the insistent belief that the rest of the world is better than us. Having a negative view of ourselves and then looking down at our penis it becomes almost automatic to have a dismorphic view.
Over the course of this study I have looked at many pictures portraying the penis. Initially it was a very anxious environment for me but as time went on and I conducted my various tests on these images (part 4 will be a graphic model of all my findings) I started to realize much of what we see we believe based on language. If the ad says 14” then it must be true. I challenged many of these claims and many of the claims were untrue. The ones I found to have enough evidence to support their claim were all in reasonable size values. (Language will be part 3 of this study)
Thanks for reading! –Daddy