Monkeys have color or black and white vision. Does a monkey see the world in black and white or color? How do sharks see the underwater world?

The monkey's vision occupies an important place among its six senses. It helps to navigate in space, get food and protect from danger. But the most amazing thing is that vision different types monkeys may differ.

Instructions

According to scientists' research, mammals, including monkeys, lost color vision at the very beginning of their evolution, having lost two of the four opsins - the photosensitive protein gene. This is why almost all animals now have black and white vision.

However, some species of monkeys eventually regained trichromatic vision. Like humans, they have three types of light-sensitive cells that are tuned to wavelengths characteristic of green, red and blue colors. Prominent representatives such monkeys are gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, as well as howler monkeys living in the Central and South America.

New World monkeys see differently. Nocturnal South American duruculi, for example, have monochrome (black and white) vision. Males in spider monkeys and clawed monkeys are dichromats, which cannot see shades of green or red. But in females of these species, tricolor and bicolor vision occurs in a ratio of 60:40. Since monkeys live in large groups, the presence of even one female with tricolor vision greatly facilitates the survival of the entire group.

It is still not known for certain what gave impetus to the development of three-color vision. Some scientists associate this with the loss of a significant part of the sense of smell, others - with the way of life and nutrition, since only color vision allows monkeys to find young and succulent leaves of certain plants that feed on certain species of monkeys.

Meanwhile, monochromatic and dichromatic vision also have their advantages. The first allows monkeys to better navigate in the dark, which is especially important for nocturnal durukuli, and the second helps to recognize the camouflage of predators and prey. The latter are grasshoppers, lizards and frogs that mimic with the help of light.

Attention, TODAY only!

Everything interesting

Gorillas are monkeys that are very similar to humans both in habits and habits, and in appearance. However, the body structure and some external features Gorillas are still different from humans. One of these distinctive features are big...

Monkeys, or primates, are four-armed mammals, similar in body structure to humans. These animals live mainly in tropical and subtropical forests with warm and humid climate. Habitat of different species of monkeysIt is not for nothing that monkeys...

There are many different species of monkeys. Some of them are known to most people, others are less famous. For example, not many people know what vervet monkeys are. This species of monkey inhabits African continent. Vervet monkeys are...

Monkeys are the animals closest to humans in their body structure. From a zoological point of view, all representatives of the primate order are called monkeys. Primates are superior to other animals only in their intelligence. As for...

A large number of monkeys living on Earth are omnivores. Their diet includes insects, crustaceans, seeds and fruits, berries, fruits, bird eggs, tree leaves, young shoots, and sometimes grass. Instructions 1The most…

Unlike people, cats see better at night. This animal also has more developed lateral vision, but furry creatures are inferior to humans in the perception of the color spectrum and clarity of shapes. Nocturnal predatorsCats are crepuscular animals, that is, they are more…

Birds are beautiful creatures of nature. People have long envied their ability to fly, but birds have another feature that people could admire. This is their amazing vision. Instructions 1Vision plays a huge role in the life of birds.…

Monkeys are one of the most intelligent mammals in the animal kingdom. They are more like people than anyone else and often manage to surprise with their intelligence and resourcefulness. Not surprisingly, there are quite a few scientific documentaries about monkeys.…

The horse is a graceful animal with large expressive eyes. It may seem that an animal's eyes, framed by eyelashes, are very similar to human ones, but a horse's vision is different from that of humans. Instructions 1The horse is a herbivore...

The cat is one of the most popular types of pets. Despite this, not much was known about the features of feline anatomy and, in particular, vision. Most people still have outdated ideas about their...

The common expression “an eye like an eagle’s” is known, but not everyone understands how these people see the world. amazing birds. If we take eagle vision as 100 percent, then human vision is only 52 percent of it. At the same time, the sharpness is not...

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And In contact with

We are not able to see the world through the eyes of animals (and we would like to), but thanks to science we can imagine what things familiar to us look like in the eyes of our smaller brothers.

website collected 10 bright examples a different perception of the surrounding world.

10. How do sharks see the underwater world?

Until recently, it was believed that sharks have poor vision. However, research and experiments by scientists have refuted this statement. Sharks see the world around them faintly gray or green light, and objects are clear and contrasty.

9. How snakes see the world

Special organs of the snake designed for perception of heat sources, help to find prey in the dark and protect themselves from large predators. This ability to see heat sources is not found in other animal species.

8. How dogs see the world

Dogs don't discriminate red from green, and both of these colors are from yellow and orange. Many people do not even suspect that when they look at a traffic light, four-legged friend does not distinguish what kind of light is on there. The dog is guided by how the brightness of the traffic light eyes changes, and by the actions of the people around it.

7. How bees see the world

Bees see a wider range of colors, including ultraviolet light. This allows them to easily find pollen on flowers.

6. How cuttlefish see the underwater world

Despite the incredible ability to change the color of their body, cuttlefish's vision leaves much to be desired. The pupil has W-shaped form and only one photoreceptor, which allows them to see only shades of gray.

5. How sparrows see the world

Our little friends, whom we meet everywhere, look at the world through rose-colored glasses.For some reason sparrows don't like Blue colour, and are also afraid of shiny, sparkling stripes.

4. How eagles see the world

The eagle is able to see prey from a distance several kilometers, but if the bird helps itself by moving its head, then this distance can double. An eagle can scan an area with great care 13 km².

3. How owls see the world

At night, owls can see 3 times better than people. They have no eyeballs. The organs of vision of owls should rather be called “eye tubes,” but what they lack in binocular vision they more than make up for with excellent night vision and farsightedness, which makes owls ferocious nocturnal predators.

The book talks about how people around us influence our behavior in simple, imperceptible and often unexpected ways, how social influence can help solve common problems; when is it better to follow the crowd; how to increase your influence and how to use these ideas to build more successful and productive social connections. For a wide range of readers.

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book Hidden influence. What invisible forces control our actions (Jona Berger) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

Chapter 1. Monkey sees - monkey does

What could be easier than finding two lines of equal length?

Imagine that you were offered to participate in a simple visual test. There are two cards in front of you. The left card shows one line. On the right there are three lines different lengths under the letters A, B and C.

Your task is simple: on the right card you need to find a line the same length as the control line on the left. Determine which line - A, B or C - is identical to the line shown on the left card. Nothing complicated, right?

Now let's add a new condition. Imagine that you are completing this task not alone, but together with a group of other test participants.

You arrive at an unremarkable building on campus and climb the stairs to room B7. Six people are already sitting on three sides of the square table. You take the last free chair and take your seat.

The experiment leader gives instructions. He reminds you that on the right card you need to find a line that is as similar as possible to the control line on the left card. Participants will perform several attempts similar to the one described above. Since the group is small and the number of attempts is relatively small, he will ask each participant in turn to voice his answer, which he will then enter on a special form.

The presenter turns to one of those sitting on the left and asks him to answer first. The first participant is a red-haired guy of about twenty-five in a gray shirt. He looks at the same lines you saw on the previous page and without hesitation gives his answer: “Line B.” The next participant looks a little older, appearing to be about twenty-seven years old, and is dressed less formally. But he gives the same answer: “Line B.” The third person also chooses line B, as do the fourth and fifth, after which it is your turn.

"What's your answer?" - asks the presenter. Which line would you choose?

When psychologist Solomon Asch came up with this test in 1951, he didn't just test participants' eyesight. He wanted to refute something.

A few years earlier, another psychologist, Muzafer Sherif, conducted a similar experiment and obtained an unexpected result. The sheriff was interested in the mechanism of formation social norms: how a group of people agree on the same way of perceiving the world.

In search of an answer to this question, he placed experimental participants in unusual circumstances. The lights in the room were turned off, people were shown a small spot of light on one of the walls and asked, without taking their eyes away, to look at this spot for as long as possible, and then report how far it had moved from the original point.

At the same time, the light source remained motionless, that is, the spot did not move anywhere at all.

But it seemed to the participants in the experiment that the spot was moving a little. Looking at a small point of light in a completely dark room is much more difficult than it seems. When the eyes peer into the darkness for a long time, they get tired and involuntarily move, so that the point of light seems to move to the side, although it remains motionless.

For his experiment, Sherif chose this particular phenomenon - it's called the autokinetic effect - because he wanted to test how much people would rely on the opinions of others in situations of uncertainty.

First, the experiment participants entered the room one at a time. Each individual estimated the distance by which, in his opinion, the spot of light had shifted. Some said five centimeters, others fifteen. The range of responses was significant.

The Sheriff then organized the same participants into groups.

Now there were two or three people in the room at once, and each one estimated the distance by which the light spot had shifted so that the others could hear it.

Participants in the experiment did not have to agree on anything; they could give completely different answers. But as soon as they were in the same room, a discordant chorus of conflicting assumptions began to sound almost unanimously. In the presence of others, people began to adjust their assumptions to those of others. Taking the test one by one, one participant could name five centimeters, and the other could name fifteen. But when they were seated together, they quickly came to a common assessment. The first increased the estimated distance from five to eight centimeters, and the second decreased from fifteen to ten centimeters.

People adjusted their assumptions to the opinions of others.

Participants exhibited a tendency toward conformity without even realizing it. When Sheriff asked people whether their answer was influenced by other participants' assumptions, most said no.

The social influence was so strong that its effect persisted even when the distance had to be assessed individually again. After the group phase of the experiment, the participants were again divided and had to give answers without hearing the opinions of others. But people continued to name the same options as in the group stage, even though the group was no longer there. Those who chose the larger value in the presence of other participants in the experiment (say, changing their estimate from five to ten centimeters) again tended to choose the larger value, even when no one else was nearby.

The group's influence continued.

Sheriff's results were mixed. Do people just do what everyone else does? Are we really mindless robots repeating every action of those around us? But what about personal independence, freedom of thought and will?

But Solomon Ash was not convinced by Sheriff's findings.

According to Asch, conformity was provoked by the situation created by the Sheriff. Guessing how much the light has moved is not like choosing between Coke and Pepsi or between butter and cream cheese on a bun. They had never made this kind of assumption before. Moreover, the correct answer was far from obvious. The question was very difficult.

In short, the situation was full of uncertainties. And when a person is not sure, he believes that it makes sense to rely on others. The opinions of others provide useful information. And if you are not confident in your knowledge, then why not take this information into account? When we don't know what to do, the wisest thing to do is to listen to other people's opinions and change our own based on them.

To determine whether conformity was caused by uncertainty about the correct answer, Asch designed another experiment. He decided to test how people would behave when the correct answer was obvious, when they could immediately give the correct answer themselves, without relying on the opinions of others.

In this regard, the line test was ideal. Even people with not very good eyesight could choose correct option. They might have to squint a little, but they would still be able to accurately identify lines of equal length. There was no need to rely on anyone.

Asch was confident that the obviousness of the correct answer would weaken the tendency to conform. Will weaken it significantly. To make the test more effective, he adjusted the answers of the group members.

One of the participants was always real, but the rest were “decoy ducks”, actors. Each actor named a predetermined answer. Sometimes it was correct: two lines that were actually identical in length were named. And sometimes all the actors gave the same wrong answer, for example choosing line B, although the correct answer was clearly line C.

The test was designed to minimize conformity. The real participant had the correct answer in front of him, so the fact that others answered incorrectly should not have mattered. People had to act on their own and rely on what they saw. Maybe a couple of participants might hesitate, but for the most part people had to answer correctly.

That did not happen. Not even close.

Conformity was in full bloom. About 75 percent of participants agreed with the group's opinion at least once. And while most people didn't fit in with the group every time, on average they did so a third of the time.

Even when their own eyes told people the correct answer, they agreed with the group. Although they could not help but understand that the group was wrong.

Solomon Ash was wrong, and the Sheriff was right. Even when the answer is obvious, people still agree with the majority.

The Power of Conformity

Imagine a hot day. Very hot. So hot that even the birds don't sing. Thirsty, you go to the nearest diner for a refreshing drink. You approach the counter and the cashier asks what to offer you.

What word would you use if you wanted to ask for a sweet fizzy drink? What would you answer to the cashier? How would you complete the following sentence: “Please give me __________________”?

The answer to this question largely depends on where a person grew up. A resident of New York, Philadelphia or another city in the northeastern United States would ask for a soda, a native of Minnesota, the Midwest or the Great Plains region would ask for pop, and residents of Atlanta, New Orleans and much of the southern region of the United States would ask for Coke, even if they had like a Sprite (for fun, try asking for a “Coke” when you happen to be in the southern United States. The cashier will first clarify which one, and then you can choose Sprite, Dr. Pepper, root beer or regular Coca-Cola.).

The place where we grow up and the social environment with its norms and habits influence everything from our speech to behavior. Children adopt the religious views of their parents, and students adopt the learning style of their dorm neighbors. And in simple solutions– for example, what brand of goods to buy, – and in more important matters, such as choosing a profession, we tend to do as those around us do.

The tendency to imitate is so fundamental and essential for survival that even animals share it.

Vervet monkeys are small funny monkeys that live mainly in South Africa. They are the size of a small dog, light blue in color, have a black muzzle and white fringe on the chest and belly. They live in groups of ten to seventy individuals. Upon reaching sexual maturity, males leave their native pack and subsequently move from group to group.

Scientists often use vervet monkeys in research and experiments because of their ability to survive certain human conditions such as hypertension, anxiety, and even alcoholism. Like people, they do not drink alcohol in the first half of the day, but monkeys suffering from alcoholism start drinking first thing in the morning, and some can get drunk until they pass out.

In one interesting experiment, researchers trained vervet monkeys to avoid certain food products. The monkeys were given two trays of corn: one with blue grains, the other with red ones. For one group of monkeys, scientists soaked red corn in a bitter, unpleasant-tasting liquid. The second group, on the contrary, received normal red and soaked blue corn.

Gradually, the monkeys figured out which grains were unpalatable. The first group began to walk around the tray with red corn, the second – the tray with blue corn. This is how local norms were formed.

But the scientists didn't just want to train the monkeys; they were interested in the question of social influence. How will new, untrained individuals behave in a group?

To test this, scientists removed trays of colored corn for several months before the newborn monkeys arrived. Then the trays of colored corn were again placed in front of the monkeys. But this time the grains were not impregnated with anything: both blue and red were edible.

What will newborn babies choose?

The red and blue beans tasted the same, so the babies had to eat from both trays. But they didn't. Despite the fact that they were not yet in the world at the time when the grains of one of the flowers had an unpleasant taste, the kids imitated the other members of their group. If their mothers did not eat blue grains, the babies did the same. Some cubs even sat on a tray of “inedible” grains to eat from another, without perceiving them as potential food.

The tendency to adapt turned out to be so pronounced that when they moved to another group, the monkeys also changed their eating behavior. During the experiment, some older males left their groups and moved to others. As a result, those who previously avoided red corn began to eat it, and vice versa. The settlers adopted local norms and began to favor grains of the color that members of their new group traditionally ate.

From birth, a person calls a sweet carbonated drink soda, but as soon as he moves to another region of the country, his speech changes. After a few years of dealing with people calling the fizzy drink pop, he starts doing the same thing. Monkey sees - monkey does.

Why do people adapt?

Several years ago I went on a business trip to San Francisco. Those who have visited the San Francisco Bay Area know that the weather there is extremely unstable. In general, summers are not very hot and winters are not very cold. But on any given day it is difficult to predict what to expect from the weather. There can be +20 in November and +10 in July. There is even a famous joke about the city, usually (though erroneously) attributed to Mark Twain: “I spent the warmest winter of my life in the summer in San Francisco.”

I went to this city in November. Since I was flying from the East Coast, I brought a warm winter jacket with me. But on the first morning in San Francisco, before going out, I was faced with a dilemma: should I wear a jacket or not? I looked at the weather forecast, according to which it should be +10 - +15 degrees outside, but this did not add any certainty. It’s still not clear whether it’s warm or cold outside. How to decide?

Instead of guessing, I used the old proven method: I looked out the window and saw what people were wearing on the street.

When we don't know what to do, we look at those around us. Imagine you are looking for a parking space. You're driving around the area and suddenly you see a completely empty street. Luck! But joy soon gives way to doubts: “If no one is parked here, maybe I shouldn’t either. Suddenly there are road works or some kind of event planned here, and parking is prohibited.”

However, if at least two other cars are parked at the side of the road, doubts disappear. Now you can confidently rejoice that you have found a legitimate one. free place for parking.

Trying to figure out what food to buy for your dog or what daycare to send your child to? Finding out what others have done can help guide you. Talking to other dog owners of your breed will help you understand what food is best for your pet based on his size and energy needs. After talking with other parents, you will find out which kindergartens have the optimal ratio of children to teachers, where games and educational activities are properly combined.

Just as subjects relied on the help of others to decide how far a spot of light had moved in a dark room, we often look to others for a useful source of information to help us make better decisions. correct solution.

Using someone else's choices as a source of information allows us to save time and effort. We could buy our pet different food every week in search of the best one, or study the characteristics of each from morning to night. kindergarten in the area, but thanks to other people we find the shortest way to optimal choice– a heuristic approach that simplifies decision making. If other people do, choose, love something, then it must be good.

But, as the line experiment shows, imitation is not only about information. Even when we know the right answer, the behavior of others still affects us. And the reason for this is social pressure.

Imagine you are going out to dinner at a nice restaurant with a few work colleagues. The company is doing well, and the boss invited everyone to a celebratory dinner. This is a restaurant with traditional American dishes, but prepared in a new way. The appetizers were excellent, the main courses excellent, the whole group enjoyed a wonderful evening with delicious drinks and sincere conversation.

Finally, it's time to order coffee and dessert. The restaurant is famous for its sweets. The signature lemon cake looks luxurious, but the frosted chocolate cake looks just as delicious. What a difficult choice! You decide to wait for others to order and then decide.

And suddenly something funny happens. Nobody wants dessert but you.

The first colleague refuses under the pretext that he is already full, the second colleague sticks to a diet and does not eat sweets. And so, one after another, everyone sitting at the table rejects the desserts offered by the waiter.

The waiter reaches you. "Dessert?" he asks.

The situation is very similar to the Asch test with lines of equal length. You know what you want - order dessert, both chocolate cake and lemon pie - just as you knew which line was right. It's not like those around you are providing you with useful information to help you make a decision, but at the same time you feel like you should give up dessert too.

Most people want to be liked by others. We want to be accepted or at least not rejected - if not by everyone, then at least by those who care about us. Anyone who's been the last to be picked for a basketball team or left out of a wedding invite list knows what an unpleasant feeling it can be.

Same with dessert. Of course, you might be the only one ordering the sweet treat. There are no laws against eating dessert alone. And yet you feel awkward being the only one. What if they consider you selfish or think something else bad.

Therefore, in most such situations, people adapt to those around them. They refuse dessert because everyone else has refused. They want to be part of the group.

Besides information and social pressure, there is another reason why people conform to the majority.

Chameleons and the science of imitation

Sometimes I look in the mirror and see another person's face in it.

As a rule, we are carriers of the features of both parents: our father's nose and mother's eyes; dad's lower jaw and mom's hair.

But when I look in the mirror - especially after getting a haircut - I see my brother. With a difference of only five years, we are very similar to each other. I have slightly lighter and curly hair, but overall we have the same features.

Genes undoubtedly play a huge role. If people have common parents, then they are genetically similar in many ways. Depending on what parental traits appear in the offspring, children can turn out to be practically twins.

But genetics is not the only reason similarities between siblings, since spouses also often resemble each other. Although husband and wife are not blood relatives, they often have almost identical faces. Compare married people with any randomly selected couple, and the spouses will turn out to be more similar to each other.

Part of this similarity is due to what is called “assortative mating” in animals. As a rule, we look for a life partner among people of our own age, nationality and race. Swedes marry Swedes, twenty-year-old girls marry twenty-year-old boys, South Africans are looking for a partner in South Africa. As they say, suit matches suit.

Further, people usually like those who are similar to them. If you have an oval face or prominent cheekbones, you will find people with the same facial features more attractive. Simply because you see such a face in the mirror more often.

All these factors push people to choose a partner who is at least a little like them.

But that’s not all: over time, the similarity between the partners increases. At the very beginning they might have resembled each other only a little, but after many years life together become similar, like brother and sister. It's like two faces merge into one. By their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary, married people increasingly become the proverbial two peas in a pod.

And although this phenomenon could be attributed to age or general life circumstances, even if we exclude these factors, married people are still more similar to each other than one might think.

In reality, less obvious processes are occurring. When we are happy, when we are sad and when we experience any other emotion, our facial expression changes accordingly. We smile when we are happy, lower the corners of our mouth when we are sad, and frown when we are angry.

The facial expression in response to an emotion is fleeting, but over years of repetition the same facial expression leaves its mark. Crow's feet - small wrinkles around the outer corners of the eyes - are often called laughter lines because they appear from the habit of smiling frequently. Imagine folding a piece of paper. The more often you repeat this operation, the deeper the folds will become.

But our emotions do not arise on their own. We tend to copy emotional condition those around you. If your friend laughs while telling a joke, you'll probably laugh too. And if he tells sad story, your face will also show sadness.

Emotional imitation is especially common among married couples. Spouses spend a lot of time looking at each other and sharing their emotions: they listen and sympathize when something happened at the husband’s work, when the wife didn’t manage to get to the store before closing, etc.

As a result, partners share not only food and shelter, but also emotions. They laugh together, grieve together and even get angry together. We often joke, and this causes us to have a lot of wrinkles around our eyes, but our partners have the same wrinkles because they listen to these jokes. Over many years, the same facial expressions that occur simultaneously leave small but similar marks on our faces. Imitation makes us look similar friend on a friend.

Chameleons – amazing creatures. Unlike most animals, their eyes move independently of each other, providing an almost 360-degree view. The chameleon's tongue is no less amazing. Its length can be twice the length of its body, and when capturing prey, it can move at a speed of almost 25 kilometers per hour.

However, the most famous feature chameleons - their ability to change color to blend in with their environment.

People do something similar too. We do not change skin color, but we copy facial expressions, gestures, actions and even the speech of those around us.

We smile when others smile, wince at the sight of someone else's pain, and use words and expressions characteristic of a certain region in a conversation with a resident of that region. If the person sitting next to us in a meeting touches their face or crosses their legs, there is a good chance that we will begin to make the same body movements. And we won't even realize that we're doing it.

We begin to imitate almost from the moment we are born. A two-day-old baby begins to cry in response to the cries of another child and copies the facial expression of the person caring for him. If you stick your tongue out at a child, he will respond in kind.

In all cases, imitation occurs unconsciously. When we sit back after seeing someone else do the same thing, there is no intentionality in our actions; and we do not begin to specifically use dialect words just because our interlocutor uses them.

But even if unconsciously, we constantly and automatically copy the actions of the people around us. We subtly change body position and gestures to mirror the movements of our communication partners. And they do the same.

The neurological basis of this tendency to imitate would not have been discovered if it were not for the ice cream cone.

One hot day in the Italian city of Parma, the macaque sat alone in its cage in the corner of the neurology laboratory, waiting for the scientists to return from their lunch break. Microelectrodes were implanted into the monkey's brain and connected by wires to a huge machine that recorded its brain activity. The electrodes were concentrated in the premotor area of ​​the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for planning and initiating movements, in particular in the area associated with movements of the forepaws and mouth.

Every time the macaque moved its front legs or mouth, the corresponding brain cells were activated and the monitor emitted a signal. When the macaque raised its paw, the monitor beeped: “Blip-blip!” When the monkey reached for food, the monitor beeped: “Blip-blip-blip!” The sound echoed throughout the laboratory.

So far, the experiment has proceeded as expected. Neurons in the premotor area fired each time the monkey made different movements. Each time the device made a loud “blip!” The scientists left it on and went out for lunch.

One of the graduate students returned to the laboratory with ice cream in his hands. He held the waffle cone directly in front of him like a microphone.

The monkey sat in his cage and looked lustfully at the ice cream.

Then something unusual happened. When the graduate student brought the ice cream to his lips, the monitor responded. “Blip-blip!” - he squeaked. If the monkey didn't move, why did the areas of the brain responsible for planning and initiating movements become activated?

It turns out that the brain cells that were activated when the macaque performed an action also activated when it saw someone else perform the same action.

When the monkey saw the graduate student lift an ice cream cone to his lips, his brain reacted in the same way as when he himself put his paw to his mouth. Additional tests were carried out, and the result was confirmed: when the monkey itself took the banana and when it watched someone else take the banana, its brain reacted in the same way.

The same neurons were excited even under the influence of sounds: when the monkey itself cracked a peanut shell and when it heard the sound of a cracking shell. Observing someone else's action caused the monkey's brain to imitate the same action. Thus, Italian scientists discovered the so-called mirror neurons.

Later, other scientists found that humans also have mirror neurons. Observing someone else's action excites the same part of our cerebral cortex as if we were performing that action ourselves. You watch someone pick up an object, and your motor potential, that is, the signal that a certain muscle is ready to move, is similar to the electrical response of the brain when you intend to pick up this object.

It follows that other people can push us to behave in a certain way. Observing other people's body movements prepares our brain to perform the same actions. Did any of the meeting participants straighten their back? Did someone take the candy from the bowl? Due to the influence of these actions on our brain, we can do the same. Our brain and muscles are aimed at imitation.

The fact that our brains are designed to imitate is interesting in itself, but behavioral mimicry also has important consequences. Yes, we imitate those around us, but what happens when they imitate us?

Jake hated negotiations. To such an extent that he was willing to pay the full price of the car just to avoid haggling. Bidding on an online auction caused him to have a panic attack. Whether he was dealing with the salary demands of employees at his previous job or discussing the details of a supply contract, he always preferred to avoid negotiations. He always associated this form of communication with coercion, confrontation, and argument.

And then one late evening he found himself embroiled in very complex negotiations regarding - just think! - gas station.

Jake was given the role of a gas station owner in a negotiation exercise for his MBA course. His goal was to sell the station at a good price to Susan, another student on the course.

For the past five years, the station owner and his wife have worked eighteen hours a day to save up money for their lifelong dream of traveling around the world on a yacht. The couple planned to sail from Los Angeles and, over the course of two years, visit dozens of places they had read about in books. They have already paid the first part of the amount for a beautiful used yacht and have begun to prepare it for the trip.

The only obstacle was the station. The couple needed money for travel expenses, so they had to sell it. Jake, acting as the owner of the gas station, tried to get rid of it as quickly as possible. It was necessary to sell it quickly, but not for less than a certain amount, otherwise there would not be enough money for the trip.

Susan sat opposite.

She got the role of a representative of a large oil refining company, Texoil, interested in purchasing this station. The company was pursuing a strategic expansion program and acquiring private gas stations like Jake's.

Jake began the negotiations by listing the advantages of his station. It had few competitors and would be an excellent investment. In addition, over the past ten years, real estate has increased in price, and building a new station from scratch would cost Texoil much more.

Susan praised Jake for his progress in developing the station, but countered by the fact that the company would have to invest heavily in upgrading it. New speakers and a completely new maintenance area will be needed. She said Texoil could only offer a very limited amount for the station.

As often happens in negotiations, both sides focused on facts that were beneficial to them. They started with why the price should move in their favor and did not reveal information that could weaken their position.

Finally, they moved on to discussing the price.

Susan offered $410,000. Jake politely declined the offer and returned to his $650,000 figure. Susan conceded a little. In response, Jake also reduced the amount.

Half an hour later they still had not reached an agreement.

Such negotiation exercises are designed to teach people how to negotiate. By acting out a real bargaining situation, they gain valuable experience: assessing an opponent's position, deciding how much personal information to disclose, learning how to make deals.

But at first glance these negotiations seemed like someone's cruel joke. There was no obvious area of ​​possible agreement.

In negotiation theory, the zone of possible agreement is the range of results in which it would be more profitable for both the buyer and the seller to conclude a deal than to refuse it. If you're willing to sell your home for anything over a million dollars, and the buyer is willing to buy it for no more than $1.2 million, then there's a reasonable range of possible agreement: $200,000. Any amount between $1 million and $1.2 million and you're done.

Of course, each of you would like to get as much of this difference as possible. As a seller, you would prefer to close the deal for the desired $1.2 million. With an extra $200,000, you could buy a new car, send your kids to college, or buy that Elvis Presley velvet portrait you've always dreamed of. The buyer, in turn, of course, would like to pay a million. He'd rather keep the extra $200,000 for himself and hang that Elvis portrait in his living room. But no matter what part of the difference each of you receives in the end, you would both prefer to make a deal within this amount than to part ways without an agreement.

In other cases, the zone of possible agreement is much smaller. If you want at least a million dollars for your home, and the buyer is willing to pay no more than a million, then there is practically no room for bargaining. The buyer can name any amount at his discretion. He might offer $800,000, $900,000, or even $999,000. But if it doesn't reach its maximum amount, you won't reach an agreement. None of you will get Elvis.

Thus, the smaller the area of ​​possible agreement, the more difficult the negotiations. When the zone is large enough, both sides can be as secretive as they like. You can start with the position that is most advantageous to you and still have a good chance of getting the deal done. But reduce this zone and reaching an agreement becomes much more difficult. Each side must be prepared to make further concessions. As a result, agreement is often not reached.

Negotiations with Texoil presented an even more complex case. At first glance, the positions of the parties did not overlap at all. The most Susan could offer on behalf of her employer was not what Jake was willing to accept. Both sides could make maximum concessions and still not reach an agreement. There seemed to be no chance. Waste of time.

Fortunately, the task in this exercise had a trick.

Although the parties did not agree on the amount of the transaction, their fundamental interests were similar. Of course, Texoil wanted to buy the plant, but it also needed a good manager to lead it into the future. And the seller, who had been successfully running his gas station for the past five years, wanted to get rid of it, but at the same time needed permanent job after returning from trip around the world. There was hope.

If both parties had recognized their common interests and taken a creative approach to organizing the deal, they might have been able to reach an agreement. But they would have to look beyond the immediate cost of the station and examine other aspects of the situation. The buyer could offer his maximum amount for the station, but also guarantee a permanent position of manager, so that the station owner would have the necessary funds to cover expenses during the trip and know that there would be a job waiting for him upon his return.

An agreement was possible. But to do this, the parties had to trust each other enough to disclose personal information. The manager, represented by Jake, had to tell him that he was selling the station in order to go on a trip. And the representative of Texoil, represented by Susan, had to say that the company needs a competent manager. The seller had to trust the buyer, and vice versa.

But trust is the last thing most people experience in negotiations that do not involve further cooperation. Each party is focused on extracting maximum benefit and strives not to give away information about its interests. Talking about the vacation would weaken Jake's bargaining position, so people in his position would prefer to keep such information to themselves.

How might Susan gain Jake's trust? What could she do to win him over and get him to reveal this valuable personal information?

It turns out that a simple trick allows negotiators like Jake and Susan to increase the effectiveness of such deals fivefold. They are five times more likely to reach an agreement, even when the situation seems hopeless.

What trick?

Imitating your negotiating partner.

Scientists decided to find out whether imitation can help a buyer gain the trust of a seller. They asked couples like Jake and Susan to conduct the same negotiations. But half the time, they asked the buyer to subtly copy their opponent's mannerisms. If the seller rubbed his face, the buyer did the same. If the seller leaned back on the back of the chair or, conversely, leaned forward, the buyer repeated his body movements. Not explicitly, but unnoticed by the interlocutor.

Nonsense, you say. Why should the fact that someone rubbed their face or leaned back in their chair affect the outcome of the negotiation?

But he had an impact. People who imitated their opponent were five times more likely to make successful trades. Of those who did not copy, almost no one came to an agreement, while negotiators who quietly copied their opponents' movements made deals two out of three times.

Imitation facilitates social interaction by helping to establish rapport. Like social glue, imitation binds us together. When a person's behavior coincides with ours, we stop seeing him as an adversary and focus on what unites us. We feel more closeness and connectedness. And we don't even realize it.

If a person behaves like us, we assume that we have something in common with him or belong to the same circle. This may be partly due to the association between similarity and relatedness. Because we tend to imitate those around us, another person's behavior that is similar to ours can serve as an unconscious signal that we are connected in some way. If a person has the same accent or is a fan of the same brand, we feel close, similar. This connection, in turn, promotes sympathy and facilitates communication.

Thus, imitation has all sorts of interpersonal consequences. During speed dating conducted as part of one experiment, interlocutors with similar speech characteristics were three times more likely to express interest in meeting each other again. Among existing couples in the same experiment, people with similar communication styles were 50 percent more likely to still be dating three months later.

Imitation also contributes to success in business. In negotiations, it not only helped close deals, but also allowed negotiators to create additional value and capture more of it. During interviews, applicants who imitated the interviewer's mannerisms felt more confident and answered questions better. And in retail trade imitation enhanced the seller's persuasiveness.

In fact, the only time we don't imitate others is when we want nothing to do with them. For example, people who were happy in their current romantic relationships were less likely to imitate attractive people of the opposite sex. It is only by not wanting to establish a connection with someone that we retreat from this innate tendency.

It is now clear that people often repeat after those around them. But could this tendency to imitate increase popularity?

How imitation relates to box office hits

At first we only see a foot slowly tapping the aluminum leg of a school desk. Then a pencil drumming on a textbook. Finally, the bored face of a girl resting her chin on her palm. She's waiting for something. Looks at his watch.

The hand slowly counts down the seconds: 57, 58... Each click merges with the tap of a pencil on the cover of a textbook. The camera pans to the students, whose eyes are also focused on the dial. When will the lesson end? Even the teacher can't stand it.

And then the bell rings - the end of the painful wait. The students grab their backpacks, jump up from their seats and run to the office door.

Four quick hits with a drumstick and it began. “Oh baby, baby...” a hoarse voice intones. Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom - to the beat of the music. "Oh baby, baby..."

The camera focuses on a teenage girl with straw-colored hair in high braids with pink bows at the ends. She is dressed like a Catholic school student, but the uniform looks more like a Halloween costume. An ironed white blouse tied under the bust, a short black skirt and high black knee socks. She moves her hips smoothly, the corridor fills with schoolchildren, and the girl and her friends begin to dance to the music.

“Oh baby, baby, how was I supposed to know...?”

So in the early autumn of 1998, the world met Britney Jean Spears.

The song “…Baby One More Time” became not only a reason for getting to know each other. It was a huge hit. The single broke sales records around the world and was named one of the best-selling singles in history. The video for this song was named the best of the decade by Billboard magazine; it was voted third on the list of the most influential music videos in the history of pop music. Britney Spears' self-titled album was certified platinum fourteen times in the United States and has sold over 300 million copies worldwide. It is the best-selling album by a teenage solo artist and one of the best-selling albums in history.

Whatever one may say, a good start to a career.

But "...Baby One More Time" was only a precursor to further success. Britney Spears' second album, Oops!... I Did It Again, became the fastest-selling album by a female artist in history. Her third album debuted at number one on Billboard's Top 200 list.

Whether you like her music or not, Britney Spears is one of the most celebrated pop icons of the first decade of the 21st century. In addition to the Grammys, she has received nine Billboard Music Awards, six MTV Video Music Awards and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Tours around the country and the world brought in over $400 million. Britney Spears is the only artist in history to have a single and an album top the charts in each of her three decades of career.

Very good.

But let's go back to basics for a second. Before the tour, before the millions of albums sold, before her personal life went downhill (remember Kevin Federline?). Even before we heard “…Baby One More Time.”

Let's imagine for a second that we could turn back time and start all over again.

Would Britney Spears Become Popular? Could the pop princess hit the bull's eye again?

It's hard to argue with success. Still, Britney Spears was not a “one-hit wonder.” With 100 million albums sold, she is one of the "best-selling" female music artists in history. There must be something about her that allowed her to achieve such success, right?

Britney had all the makings of a future star. She started dancing at the age of three. She won talent competitions and starred in commercials at an age when most of us were learning basic arithmetic. She even participated in the show “The Mickey Mouse Club,” a launching pad for many young starlets that launched the careers of including Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera. How can you not succeed with such and such a pedigree?

When we look at superstars like Britney Spears, we assume that they stand out from the crowd. That they have some natural talent or innate quality that leads them straight to success.

If you asked music experts to explain Britney Spears' runaway success, they would say something similar. That Britney's voice has a unique sound. She may not be the greatest singer in history, but she had some edge. The combination of modern choreography, innocence and sex appeal made her the ideal pop singer. Thanks to these qualities, Britney became a megastar. If you were to rewrite history, the same qualities would still allow it to succeed.

Britney's success was inevitable.

We make the same assumptions about popular films, books, and other box office hits. Why have the Harry Potter books sold over 450 million copies? They must be excellent. “This book has all the makings of a classic literary work", some newspapers reported. “We are naturally receptive to intriguing stories,” others wrote. Books with such sales levels simply must be of higher quality than their competitors. More interesting. Better written. More exciting.

But maybe the successes of these box office hits are more random than we think?

If artists like Britney Spears are better than others at something, then this should be obvious to an expert. Sure, her music may not be the best from a technical standpoint, but Britney may have the perfect voice for her genre. Even though critics don't like it, hitmakers always recognize a sensation. Leading industry players must have predicted early on that she would become a superstar.

The same goes for Harry Potter. It's no Chaucer, but when JK Rowling took the manuscript of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to publishers in the mid-1990s, they had to compete for the right to publish the book. Just as an oenophile distinguishes a good cabernet from an excellent one, so a person who has devoted ten years to publishing must be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps ordinary readers would not be able to immediately recognize the future bestseller, but experts certainly should.

And yet they didn't.

Rowling's original manuscript was rejected by the first twelve publishers. According to them, it was too long. You can't make much money from children's books. “Don’t quit your day job,” they advised the aspiring writer.

And this was not just the case with J.K. Rowling. The novel Gone with the Wind was published after thirty-eight rejections. Elvis was advised to get back behind the wheel of the truck. Walt Disney was fired as a young man for “lack of imagination and lack of interesting ideas.”

Harry Potter was published almost by accident. The situation moved forward only when one of the publishers gave the manuscript to his daughter to read. The girl spent months buzzing in her father's ear about what a wonderful book it was, until he made Rowling a commercial offer. And thus turned her into a multimillionaire.

If hits have intrinsic qualities that distinguish them from losers, then their fate should be predictable. Maybe not for you, not for me, but at least for industry experts. For people whose job it is to separate the good from the bad.

But how do we understand the fact that even experts do not always predict success?

This question tormented Princeton sociologist Matthew Salganik, who was working on his dissertation. Books, songs and films that become hits are so much more successful than their competitors that we tend to consider them qualitatively different from everything else.

But if the best are clearly head and shoulders above everyone else, why can't experts always spot them? Why did so many publishers pass up the opportunity to sign JK Rowling?

To find out, Salganik and his colleagues organized a simple experiment. They developed a website where people could listen to music and download it for free. No famous songs or famous groups– only unknown compositions by unknown performers. Local up-and-coming musicians or bands who have just recorded their first “demo.” Bands with names like Go Mordecai, Shipwreck Union, 52 Metro.

The compositions went down the list one after another. Site visitors could choose any one, listen and download if they liked it. Each listener was given the list in random order so that each song received an equal amount of attention. More than fourteen thousand people took part in the experiment.

In addition to the names of artists and songs, one group of listeners could see which songs previous users liked. Next to each song it was indicated how many people downloaded it. For example, if the song Lockdown by 52 Metro was downloaded 150 times, then the number 150 would appear next to it.

Like any bestseller list, the songs for the participants in the experiment from this group were sorted by popularity. The most frequently downloaded song was first on the list, the second most popular was second, etc. The number of downloads and the song's place in the list were updated automatically as soon as someone downloaded it. Salganik then studied which songs were downloaded most often.

Having information about the choices of other site users had a huge impact on the results. People suddenly began to imitate each other. As in the experiment with a light spot on the wall in a dark room, people listened to and downloaded those songs that previous visitors to the site liked.

The range of popular compositions has narrowed. The gap between the most and least popular songs has widened. Interest in the former increased even more, and the latter began to receive even less attention. The songs were the same, but social influence increased the success of the best and increased the failure of the worst.

But Salganik did not stop there. He was interested in testing how people's tendency to imitate each other affects popularity, but the original mystery was not solved. Sure, certain songs or books may become more popular than others, but why couldn't experts, armed with market research, predict this success in advance?

To answer this question, Salganik added one more detail to his experiment.

It is impossible to change the past. You can't stop time, go back and see what happens if you start all over again. So instead of restarting existing world, Salganik created eight new ones. Eight separate worlds, or independent groups, that looked the same, at least at first.

This decision became the key to the solution.

The good thing about a scientific experiment is that it can be controlled. In this case, all eight groups started with the same conditions. Everyone had access to the same information. All songs initially had the same number of downloads - none. Since the participants in the experiment were randomly assigned to groups, their composition was also approximately the same. Some liked punk, some liked rap, but on average each group had the same number of participants with one or another musical taste. Thus, these “worlds” began in all respects under identical conditions.

However, they developed independently of each other, as if eight different versions of planet Earth were spinning side by side separately.

If success depended only on quality, then the end result in all groups should have been the same. The best songs had to be the most popular, the worst songs had to be the least popular, and the songs that were popular in one group had to be popular in all of them. If 52 Metro's Lockdown was the most downloaded song in one world, it should be close to the top of the list in the others. On average, preferences in all groups should be the same.

But that did not happen.

The popularity of the songs varied significantly from group to group. One of the most popular was Lockdown by 52 Metro. In another, the same composition is located at the very end of the list - forty out of forty-eight, almost last place by number of downloads.

The same song, approximately the same composition of participants in the groups, but absolutely different level success. Same initial conditions, but different final results.

Why this inconstancy of popularity?

The reason is social influence. In the world where this song became the most popular, there were no more fans of punk than in the group where it was not successful. But since people tend to follow those who came before them, the slight difference from the start to the finish snowballed.

To understand why this phenomenon occurs, imagine parking at a county farmer's market. There is no parking lot with markings as such, no one regulates the traffic. Just a big empty field where people park their cars. By and large, they don't care where to park; they just want to eat cotton candy and ride a ferris wheel. There are no markings indicating parking spaces, so the first driver to enter the field can park his car wherever he pleases.

The first visitors were a family from the West. They would like to face west - not fundamentally, but still - so they drive in, turn right and park the car with the hood facing west.

Then the second family arrives. These people are from the South, so they would prefer to park their car facing south rather than west. But their desire is not so strong, therefore, given that the first car is parked with its hood facing west, they also turn right after entering and stand parallel.

Soon other cars appear. Drivers and passengers may have their own preferences, but they imitate those who arrived earlier until the parking lot fills up as follows:

It's logical.

But what if, instead of a family from the West, it was a family from the South who arrived in the parking lot first? What if Southerners were the first to personalize their car?

Given their desire to park facing south, they would drive straight and park like this:

Next to arrive is a family from the West. They would prefer to face west, but since the car that arrived earlier is facing south, they drive ahead and do the same. The rest of the visitors imitate the first, and after a while the parking lot takes on the following form:

Same eight cars, same parking preferences, but a completely different result. Everyone faces south, not west - and only because of the preferences of whoever arrived in the parking lot first.

The final result of the musical experiment was formed in the same way. Let's take two of the eight groups at the beginning of the experiment. They are basically the same. None of the songs have ever been uploaded. Even the participants are the same on average.

However, like Western and Southern families, individuals in these groups may have slightly different preferences. Some people like punk a little more than rap, others - vice versa.

And the order in which these two people express their preferences is also different. In one group, the first person to choose a song is the one who prefers punk. He listens to several songs, finds the song he likes and downloads it. A punk song scores one point, a rap song scores zero. Then a second listener appears and is guided by the first listener's choice. A punk song has more downloads, so it gets more attention. The second listener is a little more into rap, but he also likes punk and the song seems good, so he downloads it. Punk – 2, rap – 0.

In the second group, the first listener is a rap lover. The process follows the same scenario, but with different results. A person listens to several songs, selects a rap song he likes and downloads it. Not because he doesn’t like punk, but because he prefers rap a little more. Punk - 0, rap - 1. Then a punk fan appears, but this time he is the second one. So instead of acting according to his personal preference, he succumbs to influence and also downloads a rap song. Punk – 0, rap – 2.

Soon, the two initially identical groups of experiment participants begin to look slightly different from each other. In one the list is topped by a punk song, in the other by a rap song.

One person's liking for a particular song is not enough to completely change someone's preferences. But enough to tip the scales. Songs at the top of the list received more attention, were listened to more often, and were downloaded more often as a result. This increased the likelihood that the punk song would be downloaded again in the first group, and the rap song in the second. The process was repeated with the next listener.

Slowly but surely, as in the case of parking at the county fair, social influences pulled originally similar groups in different directions. Considering that hundreds of thousands of people participated in the experiment, the difference in the final results was significant, but the starting conditions were the same.

The findings are both simple and startling. This means that a musical, literary or other work sometimes becomes a hit not so much due to its quality, but due to luck and herd instinct. If we started all over again, Britney Spears (and J. K. Rowling, for that matter) might not become popular. Her video clip was released on time, someone liked it, and others followed it. But she may be no better than other aspiring musicians we've never heard of.

Does this mean that anything can become a hit? That terrible books and movies are just as likely to gain popularity as good ones?

Not really. Even in Salganik's experiment, quality correlated with success. The “best” songs—those that were downloaded more often in the independent control group—were more popular in the experimental groups, while the “worst” songs were less popular. The highest-quality compositions never ended up at the bottom of the list, and the least-quality compositions were not especially popular anywhere.

But the spread of results was still large. And this suggests that quality alone is not always enough.

Thousands of books, films and songs vie for public attention. None of us have that much time to read every cover or listen to every demo. Most people do not have the physical opportunity to experience even a small percentage of all options.

Therefore, we use someone else’s choice to save our own time and effort - as a kind of filter. If a book is on the bestseller list, we are more likely to look at the blurb. If a song is already popular, we are more likely to listen to it. Imitating others saves us time and energy, leading us (if we're lucky) to things we're more likely to enjoy.

Does this mean that we ourselves will like all those books and songs? Not necessary. But we are more likely to pay attention to them. And with thousands of competing applicants, our increased attention is enough to give them a chance to succeed.

In addition, knowing that this or that object of our attention was liked by others, if there are any doubts, we will lean in its favor. Appearing on the bestseller list gives something credibility: if so many people bought it, it must be good.

JK Rowling inadvertently tested the validity of these hypotheses when she published a book under a pseudonym. After the success of Harry Potter, Rowling decided to write a detective novel, The Cuckoo's Calling. While the first Potter novel brought Rowling fame, reviewers were critical of the subsequent books in the series, and Rowling was worried that because of her fame, the new work might be perceived with bias. She wanted the novel to speak for itself. Therefore, for The Cuckoo's Calling, Joan took the pseudonym Robert Galbraith - from Robert F. Kennedy and Ella Galbraith (a name she invented as a child).

Robert Galbraith's novel was a mixed success. Almost all readers liked it. It was called "imbued with mystery" and "addictive."

But, unfortunately, there were not too many readers - mostly people who chose the novel by pure chance. The Cuckoo's Calling was released without fanfare and sold only 1,500 hardcover copies in its first three months of sale.

Then one day the book soared from 4,709 on Amazon to becoming a bestseller. Behind record time hundreds of thousands of copies were sold.

Did readers really see the genius of Robert Galbraith? No. Perhaps a thorough study of the style and manner of writing “The Cuckoo’s Calling” revealed it to be a literary masterpiece? Also no.

Without JK Rowling's last name, The Cuckoo's Calling was little more than one of thousands of well-written mysteries competing for readers' attention. And with Rowling's name on it, he had a 450 million-copy stamp of approval that couldn't help but make potential readers take notice. How can millions of people be wrong?

Practical application of social influence

These discoveries about the human tendency to imitate have a number of important practical implications.

When trying to force or convince someone to do something, we usually resort to the method of reward or punishment. The best employee of the month receives a $100 bonus and a place on the honor board. The kids are told to eat their vegetables or they won't get ice cream for dessert.

But if reward and punishment are effective in the short term, then main goal they often undermine.

Imagine being stuck on another planet and they only serve two dishes for lunch: zagvarts and galblats. You've never heard of them and they both look a little strange, but you're starving and need to eat something.

Before you can make a choice, the owner of the house informs you that you must eat the galblats before you can receive the zagvarts.

Which of the two dishes do you think is tastier: zagvarty or galblati?

Children make similar conclusions about ice cream and vegetables. A reward in the form of ice cream in advance causes a negative attitude towards vegetables, although they can be very tasty. But children think something like this: if vegetables are tasty, then why offer a reward for eating them?

The promise of a reward - ice cream - implies that vegetables themselves are not worthy of attention and children should be rewarded for eating this dish. When parents stop rewarding, children will stop eating. Whenever possible to choose a dish independently, vegetables will be pushed to the side. The same applies to employees. They begin to think that the only reason to come to work on time and diligently fulfill their obligations is the bonus, and not the love of work.

Using social influence more effectively. Like monkeys with red and blue corn, people imitate the choices and behavior of others. If parents enjoy eating broccoli, children will follow suit.

Unfortunately, many parents themselves let their children know that vegetables are tasteless. They put very few vegetables on their plate and eat the chicken, steak, or whatever is served first. And if parents don’t eat vegetables, why on earth would children want to?

But if parents themselves eat broccoli first, then children will repeat after them. Better yet, have a comic argument about which parent will eat the last piece. The more often children see their parents eating a particular food - and with pleasure - the higher the chances that they will imitate them.

Copying is also a useful tool.

Imagine that on a sunny spring day you went to lunch in a cafe with several colleagues. You found a table outside, studied the menu and decided what you wanted to order.

The waiter comes up, asks about the order, and you begin to list:

– Medium hamburger with bacon and cheese and salad.

“I see,” he replies, “a medium-sized hamburger with bacon and cheese and a salad, right?”

“Yes,” you answer happily. My stomach is already growling in anticipation.

Did you notice what happened? Probably not.

Meanwhile, this happens to each of us dozens, if not hundreds of times every day. The waiter didn't just take your order - he copied you. He could simply say “okay” or “soon.” But he didn't. The waiter repeated your phrase word for word.

Trivially? May be.

But research shows that this technique increases waiter tips by 70 percent.

Whether you want to get a contract, get someone to do something, or simply win sympathy, the easiest way to start is to subtly copy the speech and mannerisms of the interlocutor. Even something as small as imitating a greeting style (such as “hello,” “good afternoon,” or “welcome”) in email communication can make rapport easier.

By understanding why people imitate, we can learn to be less susceptible to the influence of others.

Decisions made by a group of people often suffer from so-called groupthink: conformity and the desire for intra-group agreement cause the group to make lower-quality decisions. Look at how opinions are exchanged in a focus group or how a committee decides who to hire: the first person to speak has a huge impact on the outcome. Just as songs become popular based on the preferences of early listeners, the direction of discussion or voting depends on the opinion of whoever voices their opinion first. Doubting group members tend to conform to the majority and usually keep their doubts to themselves - unless someone has a strong objection. The group calmly chooses one solution, although it could just as easily have chosen another. Groupthink has been blamed for everything from the Challenger space shuttle crash to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

People talk about collective mind, but collective decisions are wise only when every member of the group has access to each member's individual information. By putting all the pieces together, you can find a better solution than one person could. But if everyone just imitates each other or keeps their knowledge to themselves, the value of the group is lost.

Therefore, it is very important to ensure that everyone shares their unique information. How to get alternative opinions out of people?

It turns out that all it takes is one dissenter. The correct answer of at least one of the “decoy” participants in Asch’s experiment with lines would be enough for a real participant to also answer correctly, despite the opinion of the majority. He didn't need the support of half the group, just one more dissenter. We don't need to be part of a majority to freely express our opinions. The main thing is not to be the only one.

Interestingly, another alternative opinion does not have to coincide with ours. It was enough for at least one of the “decoy ducks” to give an answer that did not coincide with the majority opinion (line A, not line B) for the real participant to answer correctly (line C). Having another dissenter, even if their opinion did not match their own, gave people confidence and allowed them to voice their own answer.

That dissenter changed the nature of the discussion. Now the real participant did not have to go against the group, did not have to choose between “I” and “they”. The correct answer became a matter of personal opinion. When a person sees that everyone has different opinions, it is much easier and more comfortable for him to express his own.

To encourage alternative opinions, some managers specifically assign one person to continually voice dissent. This encourages not only those who share this disagreement to speak out, but also those who have other alternative opinions.

Secrecy is also of great importance. The metaphor “monkey see, monkey do” perfectly conveys the essence of imitation, but it should be noted Special attention to the part where “the monkey sees.” If a person cannot observe what others are doing, then others cannot influence him. If one monkey had never seen other monkeys eat red or blue corn, their choice would not have influenced its food preferences. Social influence is only effective when other people's opinions or behavior are visible.

Therefore, the only way to avoid the social influence effect is to make the decision in secret. The use of written ballots rather than voting by show of hands promotes independence of opinion and avoids conformity. The anonymity of ballot papers gives people the opportunity to express their personal opinions with even greater confidence. It can be useful to have participants express their points of view in writing before the meeting begins. It's a small point, but writing evidence before communicating with other participants makes it more difficult to deviate from your own beliefs and increases the likelihood of voicing different points of view.

The same general principles can be used to influence others. One opinion can get lost in a discordant chorus of voices, but reduce the size of the group and that voice can become much more powerful. Instead of trying to win over the entire audience at once, it is much easier to achieve consensus by visiting all the meeting participants individually in advance. By starting with supporters, you can create a small coalition that will win over the undecided.

Another way to set the direction of the discussion is to speak first. Not everyone will agree, but your opinion can, like a magnet, attract those who did not have their own clear position.

From all of the above, we can conclude that endless queues for croissants, Japanese cheese pie or another fashionable culinary product are most likely not worth it. Surely there will be others nearby no less wonderful places, which do not require fifty minutes of standing in line.

End of introductory fragment.

The world as animals see it has only recently opened up to humans thanks to the development of scientific technologies. Many creatures see our world as gray and blurry, but some see it in complete darkness and even in spectra in which humans cannot see the world around us.

For example, animals from the family equine(horses, zebras) see the world using peripheral vision, because their eyes are located on the sides of their heads and their viewing angle is 350 degrees. They perfectly see what is on their side, but there is one drawback - they do not see what is in front of their nose. A horse sees two pictures and cannot combine them into a single image like a human. They also see shades of green and blue, but the rest is blue.

This is the picture a horse sees

Monkey see like a person. They distinguish between green, red and blue colors. But some species of primates do not see them.

Birds see a wider range of colors than humans. They are able to see ultraviolet light. Pigeons can see 5 zones of the spectrum and distinguish between millions of different shades.

U vulture, vulture or eagle- binocular vision. Thanks to this, they can find prey at an altitude of thousands of meters.

What owls going blind during the day is a myth. They see well both day and night, but at night their vision becomes sharper and they see 100 times better than a person.

Cats and dogs do not have very good eyesight, so they rely more on their nose and ears. Cats have poor color vision, but they have better night vision. Dogs have slightly better vision than cats - they can distinguish between yellow and blue colors.

This is the range of colors dogs can distinguish

This is how cats see in the dark

The eyes are sensitive to movement, so they do not notice prey that is not moving. But at night, their eyes pick up infrared signals, i.e. the heat that the body of animals radiates.

This is how a snake sees a person in the dark

Insects, thanks to the special structure of their eyes, see the world around them like a mazay. In the eye of insects there are many corneal lenses, and each lens transmits its own image and is a particle of the overall image. Some insects have up to 30,000 of these lenses in their eyeballs.

An interesting fact is that some representatives of marine fauna have better vision than terrestrial animals. For example, he has the most thorough vision. While most animals have only one receptor responsible for the perception of color, this crustacean has 8 types. No one even knows exactly how many colors his eyes can distinguish, but this figure will be fantastic.

Incredible facts

For centuries, people had no idea what and how animals see. Recent scientific research has discovered amazing world diversity of vision among our smaller brothers. Many animals see the world in fuzzy shades of gray or washed out and pale colors, while others can see in complete darkness and even see colors that are beyond visible to humans spectrum

Here amazing facts about how animals see.

Horses

Horses and similar animals such as zebras have eyes located on the sides, which gives them prominent peripheral vision. This gives them advance warning of a predator and allows them to escape if necessary. However, this advantage also has its drawbacks. For example, these animals can hardly see what is right in front of them. Another disadvantage is the lack of binocular vision. Because of this the horse always sees two images and cannot merge them together, As a person. And although horses have better night vision than humans, their color vision is at a fairly low level. They see shades of blue and green, but most of what they see is in shades of gray.

Monkey

Old World monkeys and primates basically see the same way as humans - they trichromats and can see red, green and blue. But many New World monkeys don't see all these colors.

There is no pattern among the different species. In fact, there can be up to 6 monkeys in one family different types color blindness and just like in humans, color blindness is more common among males rather than females.

Birds

Many birds see differently. For example, pigeons can practically see millions of different shades, and they are among the best able to identify colors of any animal on Earth. They have many more cones in their retina than humans, and therefore are able to see at least five zones of the spectrum.

In general, diurnal birds see much greater range of colors than humans, including ultraviolet light. It is believed that birds' vision is much brighter than that of humans. Hunting birds such as the eagle, kestrel and vulture have excellent binocular vision, allowing them to easily spot prey thousands of meters away.

Dogs and cats

Dogs and cats do not have very strong eyesight. They rely primarily on smell and sounds for sensory detection. In both dogs and cats color blindness, but cats have particularly poor eyesight. For example, dogs can sometimes distinguish yellow from blue. Most cats have poor color vision and do best by focusing narrowly on an object. However, they more developed night vision than people. Both cats and dogs have highly developed perspective and depth perception, and their eyes are more sensitive to movement.

Snakes

Snakes use their normal eyes during the day, but at night they change to a different pair of "eyes". These thermolocators can capture infrared heat signals from warm objects in its surroundings.

During the day, their vision is more dependent on movement. In fact, they ignore or fail to notice prey that is completely immobilized.

Insects

Because of the segmented structure of the eye, many insects see objects very differently from humans. They are known for their compound eyes, known as ommatidia or corneal lenses, which have the appearance of a convex hexagon.

Contrary to popular belief, insects do not see hundreds of copies of a single image. Rather, each lens makes up a small part of the overall picture, like a mosaic or a puzzle.

Some insects have up to 30,000 lenses in their eyeballs. But probably the most interesting insect in terms of vision is the dragonfly. The dragonfly's brain works so fast that it perceives movements in slow motion.

Insects perceive colors, but do not see as clearly as other animals.