[OT] The switch of perception

[Bob Warren]

Some of you may have had the interest to read an article I wrote which 
can be found at: http://www.bobsite.org/brazil/ .

Early in the article, there is a classical design from Gestalt 
Psychology (the psychology of perception) that can be seen either as a 
nice young woman or as an ugly old woman. One thing I did not attempt to 
discuss in the article was the part that motivation can sometimes play 
in perception. That is perhaps a pity, because it is sometimes a highly 
relevant factor. Where language is involved, care in reading (or the 
lack of it) can also play a part.

I've been racking my brains to try and discover how it was a thread I 
participated in recently ("Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev 
would do this?)") changed from a happy problem-solving process into a 
nightmare, demonstrating a problem rather than solving one. I now know why.

In my first post about the subject, I described a hypothetical 
arrangement. Instead of using "would" throughout (a linguistic option), 
I used the present tense: e.g. According to the proposed arrangement, "I 
do this" and "You do that".  Of course, had I realized at the time that 
this might lead to any kind of confusion, I would have peppered my 
proposal with lots more "woulds".

Here is an elaboration of what I intended to say by the two items given 
early in my first post:

1) I propose that Rev should produce IDE upgrades from now onwards that 
would concentrate on the provision of new features. I propose a strictly 
regular cycle for their release (perhaps slightly different to the 
current one). These "feature releases" represent the product that we, 
the users, should expect to pay for, and to pay for at least as well as 
the product merits.

2) I propose that bugfixing should be a continuous process between 
feature releases, aimed at correcting the current release as necessary. 
There would of course be no additional charge for it.

These are the actual words I used:

1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them.
2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right 
what he has done wrong.

Now here's an "ugly old woman" interpretation:

1. RR do not provide feature releases on a regular basis as they should. 
We pay for them, so Rev is doing the dirty on us by not coughing them up 
according to their obligation.

2. Rev are even making us pay for bugfixes! Well, we ain't gonna do it.

See what I mean?

Of course, after an initial "ugly old woman" interpretation, a 
psychological set has been established and everything that I say 
afterwards gets totally ignored, even if it doesn't quite add up 
logically! This "set" perception is so strong that it wouldn't surprise 
me if some people thought I was making excuses by the explanation I have 
just given!

Sorry, I realize this is not the place to discuss (even relevant) 
psychology really, but I was disappointed by what happened.

Bob