Stereotypes in a Darkroom
Who can admit he doesn't understand in photography?
Anyone who knows how to make a perfect shot encounters often challenge:
Taking picture against strong light.
The problem here is in automatic exposure: camera calculates exposure by entire picture light. This makes the subject dark: so dark that sometimes it's captured as just silhouette. No details of subject are kept on the shoot.
There are few solutions for this problem:
1. Switch to manual exposure and decrease the shutter speed. A variant of the same is: open larger aperture with the same shutter speed. Another variant: use positive expocorrection. Another variant: increase ISO (the sensitivity) with the same shutter and aperture.
2. Keep automatic settings and use/install strong front light. The light should be at least strong as backlight or even stronger.
Pros and cons of each method:
1.
Pro: Switch to manual settings is almost always available: this is just couple of clicks.
Con: The background details aren't kept on the shot if the subject is photographed well.
This is always a choice/question: do we need to keep a background?
Modern technique suggests HDR shooting: it's required number of pictures with different settings followed with photography merging. To day, this method is far from being perfect and handy.
2.
Pro: The picture comes perfect with a single shot.
Con: The installation of appropriate light requires significant efforts and investments. In many cases adding flash or even few synced flashes isn't enough. It's hard to deal with strong backlight.
Apparently, people who understand photography (or don't) encounter similar situation in real life, applied to personal communication.
As you know, psychology deals with 3 things:
1. Object (himself, observer).
2. Other person.
3. The matter or event.
Let's say one person meets (significant) achievements of other person. Nolens volens, these achievements are applied by observer on himself. Since regular brain is driven by stereotypes, we can compare the stereotyping engine as "automatic" exposure while taking photo. So the observer sees himself dark in bright light of encountered achievements of other. This turns on one of 2 methods of "picture repair" (or getting perfect shot of himself in against strong backlight).
As explained earlier, second method is hard in spite the fact results are better. Keeping in mind that "regular brain is driven by stereotypes", regular person will likely choose a first method.
Example:
One provides to his community a perfect meal.
Regular observer, who didn't enjoy the meal and just knows about it, will say:
"It seems he had tons of food out of expiration date." or
"He wants to buy public attention." or
"Sure, that food is not healthy, carcinogen, etc." or many other variants.
This is way easier, faster, and cheaper in terms of money, time, efforts than making equal-by-significance action (providing similar meal for his community).
This is not about charity, of course. There are many examples in professional and personal life. Anything done in public and important enough for the observer with be caught by using method 1. Unless observer is capable to avoid using of stereotyping engine, i.e. observer is capable to think and perform, which is rare.
Conclusions for capable persons who intend and do good things for others:
1. Avoid being namely exposed to good thing you do. No good deed goes unpunished.
2. Diagnose the nature of negative reaction to your good deeds. Notice unfairly criticising people as "not capable" for further communication.
3. In case of encountering unfair criticising in person use psychological aikido for mitigation. For given example it can be one of following:
"Would you say the same if you'd having that meal?" or
"No one got sick of that meal. Next time I'll invite you and be prepared calling ambulance." or
"You're right - it's easier to stay in a bog like you do rather than having brave bringing some sweet moments to life of the community." etc.
Anyone who knows how to make a perfect shot encounters often challenge:
Taking picture against strong light.
The problem here is in automatic exposure: camera calculates exposure by entire picture light. This makes the subject dark: so dark that sometimes it's captured as just silhouette. No details of subject are kept on the shoot.
There are few solutions for this problem:
1. Switch to manual exposure and decrease the shutter speed. A variant of the same is: open larger aperture with the same shutter speed. Another variant: use positive expocorrection. Another variant: increase ISO (the sensitivity) with the same shutter and aperture.
2. Keep automatic settings and use/install strong front light. The light should be at least strong as backlight or even stronger.
Pros and cons of each method:
1.
Pro: Switch to manual settings is almost always available: this is just couple of clicks.
Con: The background details aren't kept on the shot if the subject is photographed well.
This is always a choice/question: do we need to keep a background?
Modern technique suggests HDR shooting: it's required number of pictures with different settings followed with photography merging. To day, this method is far from being perfect and handy.
2.
Pro: The picture comes perfect with a single shot.
Con: The installation of appropriate light requires significant efforts and investments. In many cases adding flash or even few synced flashes isn't enough. It's hard to deal with strong backlight.
Apparently, people who understand photography (or don't) encounter similar situation in real life, applied to personal communication.
As you know, psychology deals with 3 things:
1. Object (himself, observer).
2. Other person.
3. The matter or event.
Let's say one person meets (significant) achievements of other person. Nolens volens, these achievements are applied by observer on himself. Since regular brain is driven by stereotypes, we can compare the stereotyping engine as "automatic" exposure while taking photo. So the observer sees himself dark in bright light of encountered achievements of other. This turns on one of 2 methods of "picture repair" (or getting perfect shot of himself in against strong backlight).
As explained earlier, second method is hard in spite the fact results are better. Keeping in mind that "regular brain is driven by stereotypes", regular person will likely choose a first method.
Example:
One provides to his community a perfect meal.
Regular observer, who didn't enjoy the meal and just knows about it, will say:
"It seems he had tons of food out of expiration date." or
"He wants to buy public attention." or
"Sure, that food is not healthy, carcinogen, etc." or many other variants.
This is way easier, faster, and cheaper in terms of money, time, efforts than making equal-by-significance action (providing similar meal for his community).
This is not about charity, of course. There are many examples in professional and personal life. Anything done in public and important enough for the observer with be caught by using method 1. Unless observer is capable to avoid using of stereotyping engine, i.e. observer is capable to think and perform, which is rare.
Conclusions for capable persons who intend and do good things for others:
1. Avoid being namely exposed to good thing you do. No good deed goes unpunished.
2. Diagnose the nature of negative reaction to your good deeds. Notice unfairly criticising people as "not capable" for further communication.
3. In case of encountering unfair criticising in person use psychological aikido for mitigation. For given example it can be one of following:
"Would you say the same if you'd having that meal?" or
"No one got sick of that meal. Next time I'll invite you and be prepared calling ambulance." or
"You're right - it's easier to stay in a bog like you do rather than having brave bringing some sweet moments to life of the community." etc.